BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 1056       Hearing Date:    June 30, 2015    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Atkins                                               |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |May 21, 2015                                         |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|ALA                                                  |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                   Subject:  Proposition 47: Second Chance Program



          HISTORY

          Source:   Author

          Prior Legislation:None

          Support:  All of Us or None; The American Federation of State,  
                    County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; The  
                    Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California  
                    Collaboration; Area Congregations Together; Berkeley  
                    City Council; C & C Development Co.; California  
                    Association of Code Enforcement Officers; California  
                    Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Building  
                    Industry Association; California Catholic Conference  
                    of Bishops; California College and University Police  
                    Chiefs Association; California Council of Community  
                    Mental Health Agencies; California Labor Federation;  
                    California Narcotic Officers Association; California  
                    Police Chiefs Association; California Rural Legal  
                    Assistance Foundation; California State Association of  
                    Counties; California State Council of the Service  
                    Employees International Union (SEIU); Californians for  
                    Safety and Justice; Christian Church Homes; Circulate  
                    San Diego; City Heights Community Development  
                    Corporation; City of Los Angeles; City of Torrance;  







          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          2 of ?
          
          
                    City of West Hollywood; Community Action North Bay;  
                    Community Housing Opportunities Corporation; Community  
                    HousingWorks; Corporation for Supportive Housing;  
                    County Behavioral Health Directors Association; County  
                    Welfare Directors Association of California; Drug  
                    Policy Alliance; East Bay Housing Organizations;  
                    Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Girls  
                    Think Tank; The Hampstead Companies; Highridge Costa  
                    Investors, LLC; Housing California; Hunger Advocacy  
                    Network; Iglesia Adventista del Septimo Dia; Jewish  
                    Family Service of San Diego; League of California  
                    Cities; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children;  
                    LINC Housing; Los Angeles Community Action Network;  
                    Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (if amended);  
                    MAAC; Mental Health America of California; Monterey  
                    County Board of Supervisors; National Alliance on  
                    Mental Illness California; National Association of  
                    Social Workers, California Chapter; National Center  
                    for Youth Law; Non-Profit Housing Association of  
                    Northern California; Northern California Community  
                    Loan Fund; Pacific Clinics; PATH; Rural Smart Growth  
                    Task Force; St. Anthony Foundation; San Diego Housing  
                    Federation; San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor  
                    Council; San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee; Santa Clara  
                    County Board of Supervisors; Satellite Affordable  
                    Housing Associates; South Bay Community Services;  
                    Southern California Association of NonProfit Housing;  
                    TransForm; Wakeland Housing and Development  
                    Corporation; Western Center on Law and Poverty;  
                    Western Regional Advocacy Project; numerous  
                    individuals

          Opposition:California State Sheriffs' Association

          Assembly Floor Vote:                 78 - 0


          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to enact the "Second Chance  
          Program," relating to savings resulting from the Passage of  
          Proposition 47, the 'Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act," in  
          November of 2014, as specified.









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          3 of ?
          
          
          Current law reflects the provisions of Proposition 47, also  
          known as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, which was  
          approved by the voters in November 2014.  Proposition 47 reduced  
          the penalties for certain drug and property crimes and directed  
          that the resulting state savings be directed to mental health  
          and substance abuse treatment, truancy and dropout prevention,  
          and victims' services, as specified.  The initiative also made  
          additional changes to criminal laws.    (See Legislative  
          Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition 47,  
          http://www.lao.ca.gov/ ballot/2014/prop-47-110414.pdf.) 

          Current law, as enacted by Proposition 47, requires that by  
          August 15 of each fiscal year beginning in 2016, the Controller  
          shall disburse moneys deposited in the Safe Neighborhoods and  
          Schools Fund as follows:

             1)   Twenty five percent to the State Department of  
               Education, to administer a grant program to public agencies  
               aimed at improving outcomes for public school pupils in  
               kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, by reducing  
               truancy and supporting students who are at risk of dropping  
               out of school or are victims of crime.

             2)   Ten percent to the California Victim Compensation and  
               Government Claims Board, to make grants to trauma recovery  
               centers to provide services to victims of crime pursuant to  
               Section 13963.1 of the Government Code.

             3)   Sixty five percent to the Board of State and Community  
               Corrections, to administer a grant program to public  
               agencies aimed at supporting mental health treatment,  
               substance abuse treatment, and diversion programs for  
               people in the criminal justice system, with an emphasis on  
               programs that reduce recidivism of people convicted of less  
               serious crimes, such as those covered by this measure, and  
               those who have substance abuse and mental health problems.  
               (Government Code  7599.2(a).)

          Current law requires that, for each of these programs, the  
          agency responsible for administering the programs shall not  
          spend more than 5 percent of the total funds it receives from  
          the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund on an annual basis for  
          administrative costs.









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          4 of ?
          
          
          Current law requires the controller to conduct an audit of these  
          grant programs "to ensure the funds are disbursed and expended  
          solely according to this chapter and shall report his or her  
          findings to the Legislature and the public," as specified.

          Current law requires that the funding established pursuant to  
          this act "be used to expand programs for public school pupils in  
          kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, victims of crime,  
          and mental health and substance abuse treatment and diversion  
          programs for people in the criminal justice system. These funds  
          shall not be used to supplant existing state or local funds  
          utilized for these purposes."

          Current law provides that local agencies are not obligated to  
          provide programs or levels of service described in these  
          provisions above the level for which funding has been provided.

          "Second Chance Program"

          This bill would enact the "Second Chance Program," ("Program")  
          with the following features and requirements:

          Purpose and Limitations

          This bill would provide that the purpose of the Program "is to  
          build safer communities by investing in community-based  
          programs, services, and initiatives for formerly incarcerated  
          individuals in need of mental health and substance use treatment  
          services."

          This bill would provide that the Program "shall be restricted to  
          supporting mental health treatment, substance use treatment, and  
          diversion programs for persons in the criminal justice system,  
          with an emphasis on programs that reduce recidivism of persons  
          convicted of less serious crimes, such as those covered by the  
          Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014, and those who have  
          substance use and mental health problems."

          Administration

          This bill would provide that the Board of State and Community  
          Corrections ("BSCC") shall administer the Program.

          This bill would define certain terms, as specified.








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          5 of ?
          
          

          Establishment of "Second Chance Fund" 

          This bill would create the "Second Chance Fund" in the State  
          Treasury. 

          This bill would require BSCC to be responsible for administering  
          the fund. 

          This bill would provide that "moneys in the fund are hereby  
          continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal year for the  
          purposes of" its provisions.

          This bill would require BSCC to "deposit the moneys disbursed to  
          it" into the Second Chance Fund, as specified.    

          This bill would provide that the "Second Chance Fund may receive  
          moneys from any other federal, state, or local grant, or from  
          any private donation or grant, for the purposes of this  
          article."

          This bill would provide that the BSCC shall not spend more than  
          5 percent annually of the moneys in the fund for administrative  
          costs.

          Grant Program

          This bill would require the BSCC to "administer a competitive  
          grant program to carry out the purposes of this article that  
          focuses on community-based solutions for reducing recidivism.  
          The grant program shall, at minimum, do all of the following:

             1)   Restrict eligibility to proposals designed to serve  
               people who have been arrested, charged with, or convicted  
               of criminal offense and have a history of mental health or  
               substance use disorders.

             2)   Restrict eligibility to proposals that offer mental  
               health services, substance use disorder treatment services,  
               misdemeanor diversion programs, or some combination  
               thereof.

             3)   Restrict eligibility to proposals that have a public  
               agency as the lead applicant.








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          6 of ?
          
          

          Committee to Develop Guidelines for Grant Program

          This bill would require the BSCC to "create a committee to  
          develop guidelines for administration of the grant program,  
          consistent with the purposes of this article."

          This bill would require this committee to "adopt guidelines for  
          the submission of proposals, including threshold or scoring  
          criteria, or both, that do all of the following:

             1)   Prioritize proposals that advance principles of  
               restorative justice while demonstrating a capacity to  
               reduce recidivism.

             2)   Prioritize proposals that leverage other federal, state,  
               and local funds or other social investments, such as the  
               following sources of funding:

               a)     The Drug Medi-Cal Treatment Program (22 Cal. Code  
                 Regs. 51341.1, 51490.1, and 51516.1).

               b)     The Mental Health Services Act, enacted by  
                 Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, general election,  
                 as amended.

               c)     Funds provided for in connection with the  
                 implementation of Chapter 15 of the Statutes of 2011.

               d)     The Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act  
                 (Stats. 2009, Ch. 608; Chapter 3 (commencing with Section  
                 1228) of Title 8 of Part 2).

               e)     The tax credits established pursuant to Sections  
                 12209, 17053.57, and 23657 of the Revenue and Taxation  
                 Code.

               f)     The federal Department of Housing and Urban  
                 Development funds, such as the Emergency Solutions Grant  
                 program (42 U.S.C. Sec. 11371 et seq.).

               g)     The federal Department of Veterans Affairs  
                 Supportive Services for Veteran Families program (38  
                 U.S.C. Sec. 2044).








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          7 of ?
          
          

               h)     Social Innovation Funds established by the  
                 Corporation for National and Community Service pursuant  
                 to Section 12653k of Title 42 of the United States Code.

               i)     The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant  
                 Program (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3750 et seq.).

             3)   Prioritize proposals that provide for all of the  
               following:

               a)     Mental health services, substance use disorder  
                 treatment services, misdemeanor diversion programs, or  
                 some combination thereof.

               b)     Housing-related assistance that utilizes  
                 evidence-based models, including, but not limited to,  
                 those recommended by the federal Department of Housing  
                 and Urban Development. Housing-related assistance may  
                 include, but is not limited to, the following:

                       i.             Financial assistance, including  
                         security deposits, utility payments, moving-cost  
                         assistance, and up to 24 months of rental  
                         assistance.

                       ii.            Housing stabilization assistance,  
                         including case management, relocation assistance,  
                         outreach and engagement, landlord recruitment,  
                         housing navigation and placement, and credit  
                         repair.

               a)     Other community-based supportive services, such as  
                 job skills training, case management, and civil legal  
                 services.

             1)   Prioritize proposals that leverage existing contracts,  
               partnerships, memoranda of understanding, or other formal  
               relationships to provide one or more of the services  
               prioritized in paragraph (3).

             2)   Prioritize proposals put forth by a public agency in  
               partnership with a philanthropic or nonprofit organization.









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          8 of ?
          
          
             3)   Prioritize proposals that promote interagency and  
               regional collaborations.

             4)   Consider ways to promote services for people with  
               offenses identical or similar to those addressed by the  
               Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014, without  
               precluding assistance to a person with other offenses in  
               his or her criminal history.

             5)   Consider geographic diversity.

             6)   Consider appropriate limits for administrative costs and  
               overhead.

             7)   Consider proposals that provide services to juveniles.

             8)   Permit proposals to expand the capacity of an existing  
               program and prohibit proposals from using the fund to  
               supplant funding for an existing program.

          This bill would require that this committee "consist of 13  
          members and shall be composed as follows:

             1)   A formerly incarcerated individual who has received or  
               is receiving mental health or substance use disorder  
               treatment.

             2)   A family member of a current or formerly incarcerated  
               individual.

             3)   A mental health expert, appointed by the Senate  
               Committee on Rules.

             4)   A substance use disorders expert, appointed by the  
               Speaker of the Assembly.

             5)   A housing programs expert.

             6)   An expert on homelessness.

             7)   Two community-based supportive service providers with  
               experience in providing   services to formerly incarcerated  
               individuals and reducing recidivism.









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          9 of ?
          
          
             8)   A community supervision expert.

             9)   An academic expert with a history of research and  
               expertise on the best practices for reducing recidivism.

             10)  A member of the board.

             11)  A public agency administrator.

             12)  An additional expert, to be selected by the board.



          Legislative Findings and Declarations

          This bill states legislative findings and declarations that this  
          act furthers the intent of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools  
          Act enacted by Proposition 47 at the November 4, 2014, general  
          election."

          This bill states additional legislative findings and  
          declarations concerning Proposition 47, mental health issues and  
          substance use disorders among the offender population, the  
          importance of prioritizing "projects that combine mental health  
          services, substance use treatment services, housing,  
          housing-related job assistance, job skills training, and other  
          community-based supportive services will help the state  
          meaningfully reduce recidivism" and "the use of restorative  
          justice principles in addressing recidivism," as specified.

                     RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          10 of ?
          
          
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,

                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In February of this year the administration reported that as "of  
          February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed  
          capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  This current population is now below the  
          court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(  
          Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state now must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

              Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed  
               to reducing the prison population;

              Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;

              Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 

              Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          11 of ?
          
          
              Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.



          COMMENTS

          1.Stated Need for This Bill

          The author states:

               California voters approved Proposition 47, known as  
               the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act of 2014. The  
               measure was enacted to ensure that prison spending is  
               focused on violent and serious offenses, to maximize  
               alternatives for non-serious, nonviolent crime, and to  
               invest the savings generated from Proposition 47 into  
               prevention and support programs.  AB 1056 provides  
               important fiscal and policy direction by making the  
               highest and best use of the savings accruing from  
               Proposition 47, directing them toward diversion and  
               collaborative programs that address the root causes of  
               recidivism of those formerly incarcerated: the urgent  
               need for housing, mental health services, and  
               substance abuse treatment.  

               Research has shown that people in the criminal justice  
               system disproportionately suffer from mental health  
               issues and substance use disorders.  Nationally, over  
               half of people in prisons or jails have experienced a  
               mental health issue within the last year, and over  
               half of the women in jail and 44% of men in jail have  
               a drug or alcohol dependency.  

               Due to their criminal backgrounds, people in the  
               criminal justice system and formerly incarcerated  
               individuals have difficulty securing housing and  
               employment upon leaving incarceration. These  
               challenges are compounded for people who live with  
               mental health issues or substance abuse disorders.  

          2.What This Bill Would Do 









          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          12 of ?
          
          
          Proposition 47, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods and  
          Schools Act, was approved by the voters in November 2014.   
          Proposition 47 made a number of changes in criminal  
          penalties and provided that the resulting state savings be  
          directed to mental health and substance abuse treatment,  
          truancy and dropout prevention, and victims' services.   
          (See Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of Proposition  
          47, http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/ 2014/prop-47-110414.pdf.)  
          Proponents of Proposition 47 submitted in part:
                                                                           
               Proposition 47 is sensible.  It focuses law  
               enforcement dollars on violent and serious crime while  
               providing new funding for education and crime  
               prevention programs that will make us all safer. . . .  
               Proposition 47 stops wasting money on warehousing  
               people in prisons for nonviolent petty crimes, saving  
               hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds every year. . .  
               .  (Proposition 47) dictates the massive savings to  
               crime prevention strategies in K-12 schools,  
               assistance for victims of crime, and mental health  
               treatment and drug treatment to stop the cycle of  
               crime. 

          As explained above, savings attributed to the sentencing  
          changes in Proposition 47 are split, with 25 percent for  
          education, 10 percent for victim services, and 65 percent  
          for a "grant program to public agencies aimed at supporting  
          mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and  
          diversion programs for people in the criminal justice  
          system, with an emphasis on programs that reduce recidivism  
          of people convicted of less serious crimes, such as those  
          covered by this measure, and those who have substance abuse  
          and mental health problems."  

          This bill would establish a grant program and process for  
          the Proposition 47 savings - the "Safe Neighborhoods and  
          Schools Fund" [SNSF']) to be allocated by the BSCC.  The  
          key features of this bill include enumerating a number of  
          prioritized proposal features, and codifying the membership  
          of a committee tasked with developing guidelines for the  
          program.

          In February of this year the Legislative Analyst Office  
          stated that based "on historic sentencing practices, we  








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          13 of ?
          
          
          estimate that the total annual deposit into the SNSF will  
          likely range from $100 million to $200 million beginning in  
          2016-17. Because the state savings from the resentencing  
          provisions in the measure are temporary in nature, the  
          deposit in future years could be somewhat smaller, but will  
          still likely fall within the $100 million to $200 million  
          range. . . .   

               Although Proposition 47 states that the monies in the  
               SNSF shall be allocated to particular departments  
               based on specific percentages for particular purposes,  
               the Legislature has the opportunity to provide some  
               direction on how the funds are spent in a manner that  
               furthers the purpose of the proposition. In particular  
               we have identified a couple of key policy questions  
               for legislative consideration. Specifically, the  
               Legislature could weigh in on (1) how the individual  
               departments should distribute the funds and (2) how  
               much state oversight to provide to ensure that the  
               funds are being spent effectively. In our view, the  
               appropriate answers to these questions will vary  
               depending on the program area. To the extent the  
               Legislature wishes to weigh in on these issues, it has  
               a couple of options. For example, the Legislature  
               could hold hearings and ask the administration to  
               present its plans for allocating the funds. The  
               Legislature could also pass legislation directing the  
               administration to allocate the funds consistent with  
               its priorities. (We would note that, depending on the  
               specific language, it is possible that such  
               legislation could require a two-thirds majority vote  
               of the Legislature, based on the provisions of the  
               proposition.) In order to give the departments and  
               potential grant recipients time to plan, we recommend  
               that the Legislature begin addressing these issues in  
               the near term. . . .  (The 2015-16 Budget:  
               Implementation of Proposition 47 (Feb. 17, 2015)  
               Legislative Analyst's Office.)

          3.Priorities

          This bill would establish a number of prioritized programs  
          and enumerated considerations for the Proposition 47  
          funding under the BSCC:








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          14 of ?
          
          

                 Proposals that advance principles of restorative  
               justice while demonstrating a capacity to reduce  
               recidivism.

                 Proposals that leverage other federal, state, and  
               local funds or other social investments.

                 Proposals that provide for mental health services,  
               substance use disorder treatment services, and  
               misdemeanor diversion programs.

                 Proposals that provide housing-related assistance  
               that utilizes evidence-based models. 

                 Proposals that provide other community-based  
               supportive services, such as job skills training, case  
               management, and civil legal services.

                 Proposals that leverage existing contracts,  
               partnerships, memoranda of understanding, or other  
               formal relationships to provide one or more of the  
               prioritized services.

                 Proposals put forth by a public agency in  
               partnership with a philanthropic or nonprofit  
               organization.

                 Proposals that promote interagency and regional  
               collaborations.

                 Consider ways to promote services for people with  
               offenses identical or similar to those addressed by  
               the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014,  
               without precluding assistance to a person with other  
               offenses in his or her criminal history.

                 Consider geographic diversity.

                 Consider appropriate limits for administrative  
               costs and overhead.

                 Consider proposals that provide services to  
               juveniles.








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          15 of ?
          
          

                 Permit proposals to expand the capacity of an  
               existing program and prohibit proposals from using the  
               fund to supplant funding for an existing program.

          WOULD THESE PRIORITIES FURTHER THE INTENT OF PROPOSITION  
          47?

          1.Committee

          In 2011, a longstanding practice of the BSCC and its  
          predecessor entities (the Corrections Standards Authority  
          and the Board of Corrections) to seek the input of outside  
          experts and stakeholders through executive steering  
          committees was codified.  Penal Code section 6024 provides:

               The board shall 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.  

          The BSCC (and its predecessors) has employed this process  
          in numerous contexts, including the promulgation of  
          regulations and the development of requests for proposals  
          for grant programs.  In addition, in 2013 AB 1050  
          (Dickinson) was enacted to require the BSCC to develop  
          definitions of certain key terms, including recidivism and,  
          in doing that work, to "consult with" specified  
          stakeholders and experts.  (Penal Code sec. 6027.)

          This bill would require BSCC to "create a committee to  








          AB 1056  (Atkins )                                         Page  
          16 of ?
          
          
          develop guidelines for administration of the grant  
          program," and specifies 13 members of the committee.  

          SHOULD THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE DEVELOPING  
          GUIDELINES FOR THIS PROGRAM BE CODIFIED?

          2.Opposition

          The California State Sheriffs' Association, which opposes  
          this bill, states in part:

               Unfortunately, we are concerned about the portion of  
               the bill that statutorily mandates who shall serve on  
               the executive steering committee (ESC) of the Board of  
               State and Community Corrections (BSCC) that will  
               ultimately be charged with addressing the BSCC's role  
               in overseeing the grant program at issue.  The BSCC is  
               well-versed in the creation of ESC's and, in fact, the  
               statute governing the BSCC speaks to this process in  
               detail. . . . 

               Given existing law governing this issue, we feel it is  
               inappropriate to legislatively set the composition of  
               an ESC.  As such, we must respectfully oppose this  
               measure unless it is amended.

                                      -- END -