BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
4
6
6
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
As Introduced February 21, 2013
Hearing date: April 23, 2013
Penal Code
AA:mc
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY
HISTORY
Source: Californians for Safety and Justice
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Public Defenders Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A "CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY BE
CREATED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create a California Institute for
Criminal Justice Policy, as specified.
Current law establishes the "Board of State and Community
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageB
Corrections" ("BSCC"), with the following mission:
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
justice populations. (Penal Code § 6024(b).)
This bill would establish in state government the "California
Institute for Criminal Justice Policy," with the following
features and requirements:
Purpose
This bill would provide that the "purposes of the institute
shall include, but need not be limited to, the facilitation of a
comprehensive and coordinated approach to delineate effective
public safety and justice systems through the use of
evidence-based practices, the promulgation of cost benefit
analyses of criminal justice legislation to promulgate a
statewide plan for public safety, and the development of
strategies based on data and science that reduce recidivism and
hold offenders accountable."
Location
This bill would state that the "Legislature requests that the
University of California house the California Institute for
Criminal Justice Policy to facilitate independent and
nonpartisan research on issues related to criminal justice and
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageC
public safety by experts in the University of California system
and beyond."
Duties
This bill would require the California Institute for Criminal
Justice Policy to "conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each
pending legislative measure relating to criminal justice.
(b) The California Institute for Criminal Justice
Policy shall include in an analysis a determination of
the potential effectiveness of the policy based on
evidence in the field of criminal justice.
(c) The California Institute for Criminal Justice
Policy shall provide that analysis to the appropriate
legislative policy and fiscal committee as soon as
practicable and not later than 60 days after receiving
a request to produce an analysis from a committee.
This bill includes non-codified legislative findings and
declarations concerning California's ongoing problems relating
to its criminal justice system, and the need for an independent
data-driven institution to promulgate best practices in criminal
justice, as specified.
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
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageD
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
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
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageE
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:
SB 466 establishes the California Institute for
Criminal Justice Policy (CICJP). CICJP will be
responsible for conducting a cost benefit analysis of
any criminal justice legislation and providing it to
the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the
Legislature, no later than 60 days after receiving the
request.
For the past 30 years, California's criminal justice
system has faced ongoing problems. Our prisons have
been dangerously overcrowded, hitting a peak of
173,000 inmates in 2006. The implementation of parole
reform in 2009 and Public Safety Realignment in 2011
have significantly reduced prison population numbers
for the first time in decades. Nonetheless, prisons
are still over capacity, jail expansion is increasing
across the state, and too few justice system entities
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageF
have embraced evidenced-based practices to increase
safety and reduce costs.
California needs an independent data-driven
institution to promulgate best practices in criminal
justice and guide the state in a transition from a
problem-plagued justice system to evidence-based
practices. A dedicated, independent institute can
carry out nonpartisan practical research to address
the continuing issues in the criminal justice system
and delineate models for effective public safety and
justice systems.
2. Oversight of California's Criminal Justice Systems
In a letter to the Governor and Members of the Legislature dated
September 27, 2011, the Little Hoover Commission addressed the
criminal justice realignment California was about implement.
The Commission stated in part:
Realignment fundamentally changes the state's role.
The state must lead by setting policy goals and
creating conditions for success at the local level.
The state must provide oversight by developing
performance measures - with input from the locals -
rooted in evidence-based practices. The state must
then collect data on outcomes and use it to drive
policy. It should inventory best practices and
develop structural and fiscal incentives for counties
to improve performance. Without this kind of
oversight, California's realignment could produce 58
independent systems of justice, creating the potential
for counties to repeat the mistakes made by the state
that led to overcrowding and court injunctions.
Counties have been given flexibility and one-time
funding to develop implementation plans for public
safety realignment through local Community Corrections
Partnerships. County boards of supervisors will have
a new and important role in shaping public safety in
California. But the boards can only overturn these
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageG
plans if they garner four out of five supervisor
votes, which makes it critical for the partnerships to
get the plans right. Although most, if not all
counties will submit their plans to the Corrections
Standards Authority, the realignment legislation
lacked any further oversight role for the state.
Some state entity, whether the newly created Board of
State and Community Corrections or another
organization, must provide essential leadership and
oversight. Not all counties will immediately have the
capacity to offer the array of options that the City
and County of San Francisco was able to include in its
plan, but all counties should be on a path toward a
similarly integrated community-based corrections
model.
. . .
The Commission urges the administration and
Legislature to continue their efforts to refine
California's criminal justice policies. Realignment
is an important step, but it requires ongoing
assessment. . . .
As described earlier in this analysis, the Board of State and
Community Corrections ("BSCC") may have some duties which
overlap the functions contemplated in this bill. For example,
the BSCC is supposed 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." (Penal Code § 6027(b)(9).) The author and
Committee members may wish to consider how the proposed
Institute for Criminal Justice Policy would complement, and not
duplicate, the BSCC.
3. The Washington Institute for Public Policy
The Washington Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) in Washington
State suggests a model for the purposes of this bill. That
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageH
institute, created in a 1982 state House resolution, operates in
accordance with the following mission:
The mission of the Washington State Institute for
Public Policy is to assist policymakers, particularly
those in the legislature, in making informed judgments
about important, long-term issues facing Washington
State.
(More)
Through its activities the Institute will . . .
benefit the state's policymakers by making available
to them timely, useful, and practical research
products of the very highest quality.
Toward these ends the Institute will . . .
initiate, sponsor, conduct, and publish research
that is directly useful to policymakers; and
manage reviews and evaluations of technical and
scientific topics as they relate to major long-term
issues facing the state.
The legislature directs the Institute's work through
assignments in policy and budget legislation.<1>
The WSIPP website notes that its current "areas of staff
expertise include: education, criminal justice, welfare,
children and adult services, health, utilities, and general
government. The Institute also collaborates with faculty in
public and private universities and contracts with other experts
to extend our capacity for studies on diverse topics. For
several projects, we have successfully merged administrative
data from two or more agencies, significantly reducing the cost
of outcome research."
The WSIPP research in the area of criminal justice extends over
the past 20 years, and includes diverse subject matters that
are equally relevant in California. A sampling of these reports
in the area of adult offenders (juvenile and sex offenders also
are subtopics covered by the SWIPP) include:
Standardizing Protocols for Treatment to Restore
Competency to Stand Trial: Interventions and Clinically
Appropriate Time Periods (2013 January)
What Works to Reduce Recidivism by Domestic Violence
Offenders? (2013 January)
--------------------------
<1> WSIPP bylaws (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BYLAWSJune2010.pdf.)
(More)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageJ
Chemical Dependency Treatment for Offenders: A Review of
the Evidence and Benefit-Cost Findings (2012 December)
Confinement for Technical Violations of Community
Supervision: Is There an Effect on Felony Recidivism? (2012
July)
Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Outcomes (April 2012)
"What Works" in Community Supervision: Interim Report
(2011 December)
Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Outcomes - July 2011 Update (2011 July)
Washington State Recidivism Trends: Adult Offenders
Released From Prison (1990 - 2006)(2011 January)
WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy
Options in Sentencing and Corrections (2010 August)
Impacts of Housing Supports: Persons with Mental Illness
and Ex-Offenders (2009 November)
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and
Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State
(2009 April)
Increased Earned Release From Prison: Impacts of a 2003
Law on Recidivism and Crime Costs, Revised (2009 April)
The Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Program: Four-Year
Felony Recidivism and Cost Effectiveness (2009 February)
Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Department of
Corrections' Static Risk Instrument (2007 March)
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future
Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime
Rates (2006 October)
Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool and
Recidivism (2006 January)
Predicting Recidivism Based on Demographics and Criminal
History (2006 January)
The Criminal Justice System in Washington State:
Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and
Prison Economics (2003 January)
Standards for Improving Research Effectiveness in Adult
and Juvenile Justice (1997 December)
Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of
Time Served (1993 September)
SB 466 (DeSaulnier)
PageK
WOULD CALIFORNIA BENEFIT FROM THE KIND OF INSTITUTE THIS BILL
PROPOSES?
WOULD THE INSTITUTE PROPOSED BY THIS BILL PROMOTE POLICY
DECISION-MAKING BASED ON OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT OUTCOMES
AND COSTS?
4. Practical Considerations
This bill would require the Institute to include in an analysis
of each pending legislative measure relating to criminal justice
a determination of the potential effectiveness of the policy
based on evidence in the field of criminal justice, and that
such an analysis be provided to the appropriate legislative
policy and fiscal committee as soon as practicable and not later
than 60 days after receiving a request to produce an analysis
from a committee. Members may wish to discuss how this
requirement might work, especially during the particularly
intense periods of the legislative calendar, with
late-introduced bills, budget trailer bills, amendments, gut and
amends, and so forth. The author may wish to consider refining
this language to ensure the Institute could meet its statutory
duties in a reasonable fashion.
***************