BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 466
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 466 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 5, 2014
SUMMARY : Establishes the California Institute for Criminal
Justice Policy for the purpose of facilitating 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. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Establishes the California Institute for Criminal Justice
Policy (Institute).
2)Defines 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.
3)Requests that the University of California house the Institute
to facilitate independent and nonpartisan research on issues
related to criminal justice and public safety by experts in
the University of California system and beyond.
4)Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall become
operative only after the Director of the Department of Finance
determines that private funds, in an amount sufficient to
fully support the startup and operational activities of the
Institute for one year from the date of implementation, have
been deposited with the state. If the director determines
that sufficient funding has been secured to support those
activities, he or she shall file a written statement with the
SB 466
Page 2
Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and
the Legislative Counsel memorializing that this determination
has been made. Provides, that once the funds deposited with
the state and determined by the director to be sufficient to
fully support the startup and operational activities of the
Institute for one year from the date of implementation, have
been expended, this chapter shall remain operative upon an
appropriation being made in the annual Budget Act to implement
the purposes, objectives, and operations of the Institute.
5)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) For the past 30 years, California's criminal justice
system has experienced ongoing problems, including
dangerous prison overcrowding. In 2006, California's
prison population reached 173,000 inmates, at 202 percent
of design capacity. State spending on corrections
increased by 31 percent in the last decade resulting in
reduced funding for higher education, health and social
services, and the courts and local law enforcement.
b) Parole reform in 2009 and the 2011 Public Safety
Realignment significantly reduced prison populations 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 have embraced
evidence-based practices to increase safety and reduce
criminal justice costs.
c) 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.
d) Instituting best practices in the criminal justice
system will ultimately save the state money through reduced
litigation costs. A 2010 report by the Inspector General
of California found that the state paid more than $139
million between 1997 and 2010 in litigation costs for 12
major class action cases associated with the treatment of
inmates and wards in the state. By addressing these issues
SB 466
Page 3
in a comprehensive manner, future lawsuits could be
avoided, and the costs of the existing ongoing litigation
could be mitigated.
6)Specifies that the provisions of this bill shall remain in
effect only until January 1, 2018, and as of that date is
repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted
before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the "Board of State and Community Corrections"
("BSCC"), with the following mission: The mission of the BSCC
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. (Pen. Code § 6024
subd. (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : "SB 466 establishes the California
Institute for Criminal Justice Policy (CICJP). CICJP will be
an independent institute that carries out nonpartisan
practical research to address the continuing issues in the
criminal justice system and delineate models for effective
public safety and justice systems. 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. CICJP is inspired by the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) which was created in
1982."
SB 466
Page 4
2)Background : According to the background provided by the
author, "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 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."
3)Practical Considerations : The bill calls for "the
promulgation of cost-benefit analyses of criminal justice
legislation to promulgate a statewide plan for public safety?"
The language is unclear, but the bill appears to call for the
institute to create a cost-benefit analysis for each piece of
pending criminal justice legislation, with an eye towards an
overall public safety plan which is created by the institute.
Given the nature of the legislature and the way bills are
amended and modified on a frequent basis, it is unclear how
the institute could effectively carry out this mandate.
4)Other Organizations : Currently there are other organizations
which perform a similar function for the California
Legislature. The California Research Bureau, Legislative
Counsel, and Law Revision Commission are several of many
organizations that advise the California Legislature on policy
issues. This bill would create a new institute for the
purpose of advising solely in the public safety arena.
5)Model in Washington State : The Washington State Institute for
Public Policy (WSIPP) in Washington State suggests a model for
the purposes of this bill. WSIPP, created in a 1982 state
House resolution, operates in accordance with the following
mission: The mission of the WSIPP is to assist policymakers,
particularly those in the legislature, in making informed
SB 466
Page 5
judgments about important, long-term issues facing Washington
State. Through its activities WSIPP 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 WSIPP 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 WSIPP's work through
assignments in policy and budget legislation.
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 WSIPP also collaborates with faculties 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:
a) Standardizing Protocols for Treatment to Restore
Competency to Stand Trial: Interventions and Clinically
Appropriate Time Periods (2013 January)
b) What Works to Reduce Recidivism by Domestic Violence
Offenders? (2013 January)
c) Chemical Dependency Treatment for Offenders: A Review
of the Evidence and Benefit-Cost Findings (2012 December)
d) Confinement for Technical Violations of Community
Supervision: Is There an Effect on Felony Recidivism?
(2012 July)
e) Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Outcomes (April 2012)
f) "What Works" in Community Supervision: Interim Report
SB 466
Page 6
(2011 December)
g) Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve
Statewide Outcomes - July 2011 Update (2011 July)
h) Washington State Recidivism Trends: Adult Offenders
Released From Prison (1990 - 2006) (2011 January)
i) WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Tool for States: Examining Policy
Options in Sentencing and Corrections (2010 August)
j) Impacts of Housing Supports: Persons with Mental
Illness and Ex-Offenders (2009 November)
aa) Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and
Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State
(2009 April)
bb) Increased Earned Release From Prison: Impacts of a 2003
Law on Recidivism and Crime Costs, Revised (2009 April)
cc) The Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Program: Four-Year
Felony Recidivism and Cost Effectiveness (2009 February)
dd) Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Department of
Corrections' Static Risk Instrument (2007 March)
ee) Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future
Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime
Rates (2006 October)
ff) Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool and
Recidivism (2006 January)
gg) Predicting Recidivism Based on Demographics and Criminal
History (2006 January)
hh) The Criminal Justice System in Washington State:
Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and
Prison Economics (2003 January)
ii) Standards for Improving Research Effectiveness in Adult
and Juvenile Justice (1997 December)
jj) Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and Length of
SB 466
Page 7
Time Served (1993 September)
6)Argument in Support : According to Californians for Safety and
Justice , "A key function of the CICJP will be to create a
Master Plan for California Public Safety based on
evidence-based practices. Evidence-based practices in
criminal justice focus on using date and science to determine
the best strategies to reduce recidivism. Across the country,
evidence-based practices are saving states money and
increasing safety by matching risk levels of individuals in
the justice system with appropriate sanctions and treatment.
CICJP is inspired by examples of independent, data-driven
decision-making about criminal justice policy in other states.
One model is the WSIPP. The Washington State Legislature
created WSIPP in 1983. The Institute conducts research in a
number of areas, including criminal justice. WSIPP has
produced research that has led to criminal justice reforms
that increase safety and reduce costs."
7)Argument in Opposition : "Although the member is to be
complemented on his singular effort effect the representation
made to the Federal Court, the legislation's failure to
include parameters for the metrics to be ascertained, the
manner in which the data is to be obtained to assure that all
parties interested in penal reform have an opportunity to
participate and the lack of a continuing appropriation fail to
conform to California's representation to the court. It is
long past due that the State addresses the establishment of a
sentencing commission with authority to act to rectify the
haphazard and oft times draconian sentence enhancements of the
past several decades to assure that the State's limited
resource of prison and jail beds is properly and efficiently
utilized as well as establishing alternatives to incarceration
rather than mental health treatment."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Little Hoover Commission
SB 466
Page 8
Opposition
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744