BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 205 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Beall |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 9, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Proposition 47: Evaluation Study
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California Council of Community Mental Health
Agencies; Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the
University of California, Irvine: Golden State Bail
Agents Association; San Diego State University; Mental
Health America of California; University of
California, Los Angeles; Association for Los Angeles
Deputy Sheriffs; California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers; California College and
University Police Chiefs Association; California
Correctional Supervisors Organization; California
Narcotic Officers Association; California Chamber of
Commerce; California District Attorneys Association;
California Peace Officers Association; Crime Victims
United of California
Opposition:None Known
SB 205 (Beall ) PageB
of?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) have a university conduct a
4-year evaluation of Proposition 47 with respect to its impact,
costs, and affected offender population; and 2) require the
Department of Justice to collect data concerning incarceration
changes prompted by Proposition 47and recidivism data for
offenders resentenced pursuant to Proposition 47.
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.
SB 205 (Beall ) PageC
of?
(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.
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.
This bill would require a four-year evaluation of process,
outcomes and costs of Proposition 47, with the following
features and requirements:
Scope and Provider of the Evaluation; Report
This bill would require the Department of Finance to "select a
public or private university through a competitive process to
conduct a four-year evaluation assessing the process, outcomes,
and costs of Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools
Act."
This bill would require the selected university to "submit a
report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2017, and
annually by that date for the following three years. The report
shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) A study of the implementation of the proposition and its
impact on incarceration costs, recidivism as compared to
SB 205 (Beall ) PageD
of?
similar populations in the criminal justice system and
overall crime, prison and jail construction, and welfare
costs.
(2) The adequacy of funds appropriated for these purposes.
(3) The number and characteristics of participants served by
programs funded with grant moneys, (as specified) . . . .
Because it may not be feasible to collect this data from
all 58 counties, this component of the report may be
limited to a small number of representative counties, to be
selected with input from relevant stakeholders serving as a
research oversight board."
This bill would require that all data collected for the report
be made publically available.
This bill would sunset these provisions on January 1, 2021.
Data
This bill would require the Department of Justice to gather and
compile the following data:
(1) The number of people released from state prisons and
county jails pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 47.
(2) The number of those released pursuant to Proposition 47
that are rearrested or re-incarcerated within three years
as compared to similar populations in the criminal justice
system.
This bill would require that this information not include any
information that would identify an individual specifically.
This bill would require that this information be made available,
upon request, to the public and to the public or private
university selected for the project described above.
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
SB 205 (Beall ) PageE
of?
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
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
SB 205 (Beall ) PageF
of?
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
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:
By approving Proposition 47, California became the
largest state to enact serious sentencing reform
de-signed to reduce incarceration. Proposition 47
reclassified minor drug and theft crimes from felonies
to misdemeanors. Research from the Legislative
Analyst's Office indicates that Proposition 47 could
result in as many as 40,000 fewer jail and prison
sentences annually.
Similar sentencing reform enacted in Georgia and Texas
has produced substantial savings without increasing
the overall crime rates in those states. More
controlled analyses have also shown that the benefits
of one-time prisoner releases and the downward
reclassification of certain offenses exceed the costs.
However, other states, such as Kentucky and Arkansas,
have reported mixed results after initiating similar
measures, suggesting that implementation factors are
important.
Implementation varies between states, which makes
independent evaluations important to the success of
sentencing reform. The evaluation of Proposition 47
SB 205 (Beall ) PageG
of?
is paramount to the law's implementation and long-term
success. This is precisely why the LAO-in its
analysis of the implementation Proposition
47-recommended the legislature require the evaluation
of grant recipients and the outcomes they achieve.
SB 205 establishes an independent, formative
evaluation of Proposition 47 by a public or private
university selected by the Department of Finance
through a competitive process. The bill requires four
annual studies starting in 2017 to evaluate the
effectiveness and financial impact of the programs
that are funded pursuant to the requirements of this
act, and submit those studies to the Legislature. In
addition, the studies shall include, but not be
limited to: a study of the implementation process; a
review of lower incarcerations costs; reductions or
increases in crime; reduced prison and jail
construction; reduced welfare costs; the adequacy of
funds appropriated; the number and characteristics of
participants served as a result of this bill; and
other impacts or issues identified.
SB 205 will ensure Proposition 47 is implemented
efficiently, while providing accountability and
efficient use of funds.
2.What This Bill Would Do; LAO Recommendation
This bill would require the Department of Finance to
identify a university to conduct a 4-year evaluation of
Proposition 47 generally with respect to its impact, costs,
and affected offender population. The bill also would
require the Department of Justice to collect data
concerning incarceration changes prompted by Proposition 47
(resentencing effects on prison and jails) and recidivism
data for offenders resentenced pursuant to Proposition 47.
As noted by the author, in February of this year the
Legislative Analyst's Office published a report on the
implementation of Proposition 47. That report included the
following:
Proposition 47 makes two changes that will reduce the
state prison population. First, the reduction of
SB 205 (Beall ) PageH
of?
certain felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors will
make fewer offenders eligible for state prison
sentences. We estimate that this could result in an
ongoing reduction to the state prison population of
several thousand inmates within a few years. Second,
the resentencing of inmates currently in state prison
could result in the release of several thousand
inmates, temporarily reducing the state prison
population for a few years. The release of these
inmates will also result in a slight increase in the
state parole population of a couple thousand parolees
over a three-year period. . . .
Under Proposition 47, trial courts will experience a
one-time increase in costs resulting from the
processing of (1) resentencing petitions from
offenders currently serving felony sentences for the
crimes affected by Proposition 47 and (2)
reclassification petitions from individuals who have
already completed their sentences. Resentencing
requests eligible under the proposition will be
resolved in judicial hearings. Based on our
discussions with the courts, such resentencing
hearings could last minutes if the request is
uncontested or several hours if evidence and arguments
need to be presented. In contrast, Proposition 47
authorizes the court to resolve reclassification
petitions without a hearing. Finally, the proposition
requires that all petitions be filed within three
years of its enactment unless the petitioner can
demonstrate good cause for filing at a later date. .
. .
The reduction in penalties authorized in Proposition
47 will affect county jails and probation departments,
as well as various other county agencies (such as
public defenders and district attorneys' offices). In
general, the proposition will significantly reduce
criminal justice workload for counties. We estimate
that, prior to the passage of Proposition 47, counties
spent several hundred million dollars annually on
workload that will be eliminated by the measure.
However, local decisions on how to respond to this
workload reduction will determine whether it results
SB 205 (Beall ) PageI
of?
in fiscal savings or improvements to the
administration of local criminal justice systems, such
as reduced jail overcrowding. We discuss below the
specific effects of Proposition 47 on jails, probation
departments, and other county agencies. . . .
As discussed above, the reduction in penalties from
Proposition 47 will increase court workload associated
with resentencing and reclassification of offenders
over the next few years. As a result, county district
attorneys' and public defenders' offices (who
participate in these processes) and county sheriffs
(who provide court security) could experience a
temporary increase in workload. However, Proposition
47 will reduce on an ongoing basis the workload for
these local agencies associated with both felony
filings and other court hearings (such as for
offenders who break the rules of their community
supervision). However, these effects on county
workload are unlikely to generate significant costs or
savings.
In order to ensure that (Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools Fund) SNSF dollars are being used effectively,
we recommend that the Legislature require the
evaluation of recipients and the outcomes they
achieve. This would serve two major purposes. First,
it would ensure that programs are achieving the
intended recidivism reduction goals in a
cost-effective manner. Second, it would allow
programs that have not previously been proven to
reduce recidivism cost-effectively to demonstrate
their ability to do so. In order to facilitate such
evaluation, the Legislature could direct BSCC to
establish a periodic evaluation process for grant
recipients. For example, BSCC could require grant
recipients to submit specific performance information,
including cost, participation, completion, and
recidivism reduction data. The Legislature could have
BSCC periodically report on the outcomes achieved.
The BSCC could use the information gathered to inform
SB 205 (Beall ) PageJ
of?
future funding decisions.<1>
WOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR GATHERING
DATA AND SUPPORTING ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECT OF PROPOSITION
47?
Members also may wish to discuss what infrastructure exists
now or may be required for the Department of Justice to
collect the recidivism data required by this bill.
WOULD EXISTING DATA BASES AVAILABLE TO DOJ ALLOW FOR THE
RECIDIVISM DATA THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE?
-- END -
---------------------------
<1> The 2015-16 Budget: Implementation of Proposition 47
(Legislative Analyst's Office) (February 17, 2015)(
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/budget/prop47/implementation-p
rop47-021715.aspx.)