BILL ANALYSIS Ó
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 -