BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
9
9
SB 199 (De León)
As Introduced February 7, 2013
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:
LOCAL BOARD COMPOSITION
HISTORY
Source: State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Prior Legislation: AB 2031 (Fuentes) - vetoed, 2012
AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011
SB 92 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 36, Stats. 2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011
Support: Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers
Association; Association of Orange County Deputy
Sheriffs; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs
Association; Long Beach Police Officers Association;
Santa Ana Police Officers Association; California
Fraternal Order of Police; San Joaquin County Probation
Officers Association; League of California Cities;
Orange County Employees Association; Fraternal Order of
Police, N. California Probation, Lodge #19; Sacramento
County Probation Association; Probation and Detention
Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; L.A.
County Probation Officers Union; Riverside Sheriffs'
Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageB
Sheriffs; Shasta County Professional Peace Officers
Association; Ventura County Professional Peace
Officers' Association; Santa Clara Probation Peace
Officers Union, Local 1587; Probation Peace Officers
Association of Contra Costa County; Peace Officers
Research Association of California
Opposition:California State Association of Counties; Urban
Counties Caucus; Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors; County of San Diego; Chief Probation
Officers of California; California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice; Rural County Representatives of
California; California State Sheriffs' Association;
California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; Lassen County; California District
Attorneys Association; Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors; American Civil Liberties Union; California
Public Defenders Association
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS BE ADDED TO THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPS ("CCPs"), AND THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEES OF CCPs, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add two law enforcement
rank-and-file members to the local Community Corrections
Partnerships ("CCPs"), and the Executive Committees of the CCPs,
as specified.
Current law authorizes each county to establish in each county
treasury a Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund
(CCPIF), to receive all amounts allocated to that county for
purposes relating to California Community Corrections
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageC
Performance Incentives, more commonly known at the SB 678
program. (Penal Code § 1230.)
Current law requires that the community corrections program be
developed and implemented by probation and advised by a local
Community Corrections Partnership ("CCP") chaired by the chief
probation officer and comprised of the following membership:
The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer
for the county or a designee of the board of supervisors.
The district attorney.
The public defender.
The sheriff.
A chief of police.
The head of the county department of social services.
The head of the county department of mental health.
The head of the county department of employment.
The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
programs.
The head of the county office of education.
A representative from a community-based organization
with experience in successfully providing rehabilitative
services to persons who have been convicted of a criminal
offense.
An individual who represents the interests of victims.
(Penal Code § 1230(b)(2).)
This bill would add the following members to the local CCPs:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank and file police
officer, appointed by the local labor organization.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer, appointed by the local labor organization.
Current law requires each local CCP to "recommend a local plan
to the county board of supervisors for the implementation of the
2011 public safety realignment." (Penal Code § 1230.1) Current
law requires that the plan be voted on by an executive committee
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageD
of each
county's Community Corrections Partnership consisting of the
chief probation officer of the county as chair, a chief of
police, the sheriff, the district attorney, the public defender,
the presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee, and one department representative, as specified.
(Penal Code § 1230.1(b).)
This bill would require that the executive committee of each
county's CCP include a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank
and file police officer, and a rank-and-file probation officer
or deputy probation officer.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
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
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageE
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
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
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageF
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:
Pursuant to Governor Brown's Realignment of Public
Safety, Community Corrections Programs are implemented
by county probation departments and advised by a local
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP). These
programs consist of a system of felony probation
supervision services that, among other things, manage
and reduce offender risk for those under felony
probation supervision and upon their reentry from jail
into the community.
Over the past two years, the CCP in each county has
developed and recommended an implementation plan for
the 2011 Public Safety Realignment to the county Board
of Supervisors. The CCPs are comprised of the
following members: Chief Probation Officer (chair), a
Chief of Police, Sheriff, District Attorney, Public
Defender, presiding Judge of the Superior Court or
his/her designee, and a representative from either the
County Department of Social Services, Mental Health or
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Programs, as appointed by
the County Board of Supervisors.
SB 199 would expand the membership of each local
Community Corrections Partnership to include a
rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank-and-file police
officer, and a rank-and-file probation officer or a
deputy probation officer. These members would be
appointed by local labor organizations and they would
have a vote on the local plan.
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageG
According to SCOPO, the sponsors of SB 199,
rank-and-file deputy sheriffs, rank-and-file police
officers, rank-and-file probation officers and deputy
probation officers currently do not have a voice on
their local CCP and yet they are charged with
delivering the bulk of services required under
realignment. Another unfortunate by-product of the
lack of rank-and-file membership on the CCP is the
disparate funding that has resulted in far too many
counties. In Sacramento, Fresno and other Counties,
the lion's share of CCP funds have been designated to,
and spent by, their respective Sheriffs. . . .
2. What This Bill Would Do; Support and Opposition Concerns
As explained above, this bill would add the following rank and
file law enforcement representatives to Community Corrections
Partnerships ("CCPs"), and to the executive committees for these
CCPs:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer,
appointed by the local labor organization.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer, appointed by the local labor organization.
The State Coalition of Probation Organizations, sponsor of this
bill, submits in part:
Each county's CCP is charged with implementing
"realignment" and allocating the funding for
realignment. Unfortunately, there is NO rank-and-file
representation on the CCP, and as a result, the
funding for realignment in many counties has been
compromised. Rank-and-file representation on the CCP
is vital to its success. Rank-and-file probation
officers and deputy sheriffs/police officers will add
an important perspective and raise vital operational
issues, which will ultimately impact the overall
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageH
success of realignment.<1>
CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus, which are among the
opponents of this bill, state in part:
In our view, the work to ensure successful realignment
of correctional responsibilities has just begun.
Given the breadth and magnitude of this shift, we
remain concerned that it is simply too soon to begin
making changes to the underlying statutory construct
that supports the realignment planning and
implementation process. We also fear that if the
Legislature sees fit to expand the composition of the
CCP its executive committee, it would be merely the
first in a line of changes that would result,
regrettably, in making these bodies too large and
unwieldy. As it stands now, the composition of these
bodies - particularly the CCP executive committee -
has been controversial and delicate. In the context
of realignment, we would all benefit from having more
experiential and programmatic data about how things
are actually working at the local level before making
hasty and, in our view, unjustified changes.<2>
3. Background: Local Community Corrections Partnerships
Community Corrections Partnerships ("CCPs") were enacted in 2009
as part of SB 678 (Leno). As explained by the Community
Corrections Program in the Administrative Office of the Courts:
SB 678 created a state fund-the State Corrections
Performance Incentives Fund (SCPIF)-and authorized the
state to allocate money each year from the SCPIF to a
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund
(CCPIF) established in each county. Each county must
establish a local community corrections program
----------------------
<1> Letter from the State Coalition of Probation
Organizations, on file with the Committee.
<2> Letter from CSAC and Urban Counties Caucus, on file with
the Committee.
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageI
directed by the county's chief probation officer and
based on evidence-based practices. These local
programs then track the success of their
evidence-based programs and report the outcomes to the
AOC.
If the local programs succeed in reducing the number
of felony probationers sent to prison, the state saves
the cost of incarcerating those offenders. The state
will then share a portion of these savings with the
jurisdictions that generated the savings. Using a
baseline average probation failure rate from the years
2006 through 2008 for comparison, the California
Department of Finance calculates the change in the
annual failure rate for each county to determine which
counties are eligible to receive a portion of the
state savings.
Preliminary results for this incentive-based program
are very encouraging. In 2010, the first year that
the local community corrections programs began using
evidence-based practices, 6,182 fewer adult felony
probationers were sent to state prison, compared to
the baseline years of 2006 through 2008. This
represents a 23 percent reduction in the rate of
probation failure, for a savings to the state of $179
million.<3>
Pursuant to SB 678, local CCPs are comprised of the following
members:
1) The Chief Probation Officer (chair).
2) The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
3) A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer
for the county or a designee of the board of supervisors.
4) The district attorney.
5) The public defender.
6) The sheriff.
--------------------------
<3> http://www.courts.ca.gov/15584.htm.
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageJ
7) A chief of police.
8) The head of the county department of social services.
9) The head of the county department of mental health.
10) The head of the county department of employment.
11) The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
programs.
12) The head of the county office of education.
13) A representative from a community-based
organization with experience in successfully providing
rehabilitative services to persons who have been convicted
of a criminal offense.
14) An individual who represents the interests of
victims.
The current CCP composition reflects the following broad
categories of stakeholders:
law enforcement: 4 members = 29%
social services: 6 members = 43%
court: 1 member = 7 %
county board: 1 member = 7 %
victim representative: 1 member = 7 %
public defender: 1 member = 7 %
Under this bill, the local CCPs would increase to 16 members,
with the following stakeholder composition:
law enforcement: 6 members = 38%
social services: 6 members = 38%
court: 1 member = 6 %
county board: 1 member = 6 %
victim representative: 1 member = 6 %
public defender: 1 member = 6 %
(More)
4. Local Public Safety Realignment Plans - CCP Executive
Committee
The 2011 Public Safety Realignment<4> enacted Penal Code section
1230.1 to require that each CCP, described in Comment 4 above,
"recommend a local plan to the county board of supervisors for
the implementation of the 2011 public safety realignment."
(Penal Code § 1230.1(a).) "Consistent with local needs and
resources, the plan may include recommendations to maximize the
effective investment of criminal justice resources in
evidence-based correctional sanctions and programs, including,
but not limited to, day reporting centers, drug courts,
residential multiservice centers, mental health treatment
programs, electronic and GPS monitoring programs, victim
restitution programs, counseling programs, community service
programs, educational programs, and work training programs."
(Penal Code § 1230.1(d).)
The plan developed pursuant to this section must "be voted on by
an executive committee of each county's Community Corrections
Partnership consisting of the chief probation officer of the
county as chair, a chief of police, the sheriff, the district
attorney, the public defender, the presiding judge of the
superior court, or his or her designee, and one department
representative listed in either subparagraph (G), (H), or (J) of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1230, as designated
by the county board of supervisors for purposes related to the
development and presentation of the plan." (Penal Code §
1230.1(b).) This plan "shall be deemed accepted by the county
board of supervisors unless the board rejects the plan by a vote
of four-fifths of the board, in which case the plan goes back to
the Community Corrections Partnership for further
consideration." (Penal Code § 1230.1(c).)
As currently structured, stakeholder representation on the
7-member executive committee authorized to vote on each county's
public safety realignment plan is as follows:
---------------------------
<4> See AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011 and
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011.
(More)
SB 199 (De León)
PageL
law enforcement: 4 members = 57%
public defender: 1 member = 14%
social services: 1 member = 14%
court: 1 member = 14%
Under this bill, this executive committee would increase to 9
members, with the following stakeholder composition:
law enforcement: 6 members = 67%
public defender: 1 member = 11%
social services: 1 member = 11%
court: 1 member = 11%
5. Previous Measure Vetoed
Last year, AB 2031 (Fuentes) proposed similar changes to the
CCPs. That bill passed this Committee (4-2) with the following
additions to CCP membership: rank-and-file deputy sheriff,
probation officer, social worker, and a counselor employed by a
county alcohol and substance abuse program. That bill also
added a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer to the
executive committees of CCPs. That bill was vetoed; Governor
Brown stated in part:
This bill would add rank and file law enforcement and
other members
to the Board of State and Community Corrections and
local Community
Corrections Partnerships.
The membership of the Board and the local Partnerships
was something I carefully considered and crafted as
part of my realignment proposal. To date, I have not
seen credible evidence that would convince me to
change the original design. If, after a reasonable
period of time, it becomes clear that the absence of
rank and file members is a problem, I will be glad to
reconsider.
SB 199 (De León)
PageM
***************