BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
Senator Mark Leno, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 353 Hearing Date: May 22,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nguyen |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 24, 2015 Introduced |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Julie Salley-Gray |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 2015 Realignment Legislation addressing justice
reinvestment.
Summary: Establishes the Realignment Reinvestment Fund and a formula to
annually calculate deposits into the fund for the purpose of
providing local agencies additional funding for responsibilities
resulting from the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing
public safety. For the 2015-16 fiscal year, $1.544 billion
would be transferred from the General Fund to the Realignment
Reinvestment Fund.
Background: The 2011 Realignment moved programs and the ongoing fiscal
responsibility for those programs to local agencies. The local
agencies were also provided a dedicated revenue source along
with increased control and flexibility over the realigned
programs. Realigned programs include local public safety
programs, mental health, substance abuse, foster care, child
welfare services, and adult protective services. Many of these
programs were already administered at the local level by
counties.
The public safety programs realigned in the 2011 Realignment
included: 1) trial court security, 2) law enforcement subvention
grants, 3) juvenile justice grants (Youthful Offender Block
Grant and Juvenile Reentry Grant), and 4) responsibility for
certain criminal offenders as established by Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011 (AB 109). AB 109 consisted of the following
primary components:
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 2
of ?
------------------------------------------------------------
| Key Features of AB 109 |
------------------------------------------------------------
|------------------+------------------------------------------|
|Felon |Restructured felon penalty by making |
|Incarceration |specified non-violent, non-serious, |
| |non-sex offenses subject to local |
| |punishment |
|------------------+------------------------------------------|
|Post-Release |Created post release community |
|Supervision |supervision for certain offenders to be |
| |supervised locally upon release from |
| |prison |
|------------------+------------------------------------------|
|Parole |Parole revocation terms are served |
|Revocations |locally (with exception of lifers) |
| | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Funding for the 2011 Realignment was constitutionally guaranteed
by Proposition 30 in 2012 and is primarily provided through
1.0625 percent of sales tax revenue (approximately $6.6 billion
in 2015-16), with a small portion coming from Motor Vehicle
License Fee revenue (approximately $546.1 million in 2015-16).
Funding for the public safety-related programs included in the
2011 Realignment is displayed in the following table:
(dollars in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------
| 2011 Realignment Funding (Public Safety Programs) |
------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
| |2013-14|2014-15 |2015-16|
| | | | |
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
|Trial Court Security | $517.8| $535.1| $550.3|
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
|Enhancing Law Enforcement | $514.5| $526.1| $546.1|
|Activities (Local Law Enforcement | | | |
|Subventions) | | | |
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
|Community Corrections (AB 109 |$1,072.|$1,061.8|$1,175.|
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 3
of ?
|Programs) | 0| | 4|
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
|District Attorney and Public | $22.0| $24.3|$31.9 |
|Defender (related to AB 109 | | | |
|Programs) | | | |
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
|Juvenile Justice | $120.2| $137.4| $152.6|
|-----------------------------------+-------+--------+-------|
| Total|$2,246.|$2,284.7|$2,456.|
| | 5| |3 |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Law:
1. States that this act shall be known and may be cited as
the 2015 Realignment Legislation addressing justice
reinvestment.
2. Establishes the Realignment Reinvestment Fund in the
State Treasury. Moneys in the fund are continuously
appropriated and shall be used exclusively for the purposes
of this chapter.
3. Establishes that, beginning in 2016, on or after July 1,
and no later than August 31 of each year, the Director of
Finance shall, in consultation with the Legislative
Analyst, annually calculate the net savings to the state
for the immediately preceding fiscal year and the estimate
of net savings for the current fiscal year resulting from
the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety,
as specified. Beginning in the 2016-17 fiscal year, this
bill would transfer an amount equal to these net savings,
plus $453 million, from the General Fund to the Realignment
Reinvestment Fund, on an annual basis.
4. Transfers, for the 2015-16 fiscal year, $1.54 billion
from the General Fund to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund.
5. Specifies that the Controller annually allocate moneys
in the Realignment Reinvestment Fund, no later than
September 1 of each year, to each county and city and
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 4
of ?
county, for deposit in the county's or city and county's
Realignment Services Account proportionately, based on the
average daily population of realigned offenders under each
county's supervision for the preceding fiscal year. The
Controller shall consult the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) to determine the average daily
population (ADP) in each county.
6. Establishes a Realignment Reinvestment Services Account
in each county or city and county treasury to receive all
amounts allocated for the purposes of implementing this
chapter.
7. Specifies that each county's local Community Corrections
Partnership (CCP) shall recommend a comprehensive, locally
run supplemental community-based corrections plan to the
county board of supervisors. The purpose of the plan shall
be to improve the outcomes of the 2011 Realignment
Legislation addressing public safety.
8. Specifies that 1) each county's supplemental community
based corrections plan shall identify specific objectives
of the programs proposed for funding and specified outcome
measures to determine the effectiveness of the programs and
contain an accounting for all program participants, 2) each
county or city and county shall report annually, beginning
on October 15, 2016, to the county board of supervisors and
the BSCC on the programs funded pursuant to this chapter
and program outcomes, and 3) the BSCC shall report
annually, beginning on March 15, 2017, to the Governor and
Legislature on program expenditures, as specified.
9. Establishes that 1) each county's supplemental
community-based corrections plan shall be voted on by an
executive committee of each county's CCP, as specified, 2)
if a supplemental community-based corrections plan has been
previously approved, the plan shall be reviewed annually
and modified as needed, and 3) the supplemental
community-based corrections plan, or modified plan, shall
be deemed accepted by the county board of supervisors
unless rejected by a four-fifths vote of the board.
10. Requires the Controller to allocate funds in accordance
with this section, as specified, and requires local
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 5
of ?
agencies to remit unspent moneys in the Realignment
Reinvestment Services Account to the controller for deposit
in the Realignment Reinvestment Fund.
11. Requires, beginning in 2016, and no later than May 1 of
each year, the Director of Finance, in consultation with
the Legislative Analyst, to develop an estimate of the cost
avoidances expected to be realized by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the
current fiscal year that are the result of the 2011
Realignment Legislation addressing public safety and report
those estimates to the Chairpersons of the committees in
each house of the Legislature that consider appropriations
and the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee. The Legislature may consider each year whether
to appropriate funds in augmentation of the moneys
otherwise allocated pursuant to this chapter in an amount
up to and including the amount of cost avoidances reported.
12. Includes a non-supplantation provision to ensure funds
deposited in the Realignment Reinvestment Services Account
do not support other local programs.
13. Prohibits expenditure of funds from each county's or
city and county's Realignment Reinvestment Services Account
on administrative overhead in excess of one percent of each
entity's allocation for that fiscal year or the cost of any
capital project or construction project that does not
directly support programs or activities included in the
supplemental community-based corrections plan.
Fiscal
Effect: This bill transfers $1.54 billion from the General Fund to the
Realignment Reinvestment Fund for expenditure by local agencies
in 2015-16.
This bill also may result in additional state costs of tens of
millions of dollars for required reports and other activities by
local agencies that could be deemed mandates by the Commission
on State Mandates.
Support:
Aaron Read & Associates, LLC
City of Santa Ana Police Department
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 6
of ?
Crime Victims United of California
Opposed:
None on file.
Comments: Realignment Funded with Growing Funding Source. The
2011Realignment dedicated 1.0625 percent of the state sales tax
to fund the local programs that were realigned. This dedicated
tax is projected to generate $5.9 billion for the realigned
programs in 2013-14. Any growth above this level of funding is
also dedicated to local programs realigned under 2011
Realignment. This includes over $1 billion in funding just to
address community corrections (AB 109 programs). AB 109
programs are expected to receive approximately $90 million more
than they received in the current fiscal year due to underlying
revenue growth.
Treatment of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Unclear. The 2011
Realignment provided budgetary savings in CDCR of approximately
$1.45 billion. This would suggest that the state did transfer
the majority of the savings related to the AB 109 population to
the counties. However, the author has indicated that this bill
would also include an additional allocation of $453 million
General Fund that represents vehicle license fee revenue that
was permanently dedicated to the local law enforcement
subventions under 2011 Realignment. It is unclear whether the
author proposes to provide this funding twice (with vehicle
license fee revenues and General Fund) or if they propose to
repeal the allocation of the vehicle license fee revenues.
Realignment Also About Reducing Prison Overcrowding.
The 2011 Realignment of the low-level offenders was important
for reducing the state prison population in order to comply with
federal court orders to reduce prison overcrowding, that were
upheld by the US Supreme Court. Realignment of certain
low-level offenders and parole violators allowed the state
prison population to be reduced without early release of any
state prisoner. Even after the significant population reduction
related to 2011 Realignment (approximately 24,500 inmates), the
federal courts have recently ordered that the state reduce the
population by an additional 9,000 inmates in order to reach the
court order population cap of approximately 110,000 (137.5
percent of design capacity).
SB 353 (Nguyen) Page 7
of ?
Allocation of Funding Among Counties Determined by CSAC.
The allocation of funding for the community correction programs
funded as part of 2011 Realignment was allocated by the
California State Association of Counties (CSAC). In the first
year of realignment (2011-12), the formula was based on three
factors (60 percent caseload [ADP], 30 percent adult population
[ages 18-64], and 10 percent county SB 678 [felony probation
incentive program] success rate), with the most weight placed on
the average daily population of low-level offenders realigned
under AB 109. The allocation formula for the second and third
years of realignment (2012-13 and 2013-14) allows counties to
choose from the best of three options (population [ages 18 to
64], status quo [first year 60/30/10 formula], or adjusted ADP
of realigned offenders). The funding was not allocated on just
an ADP basis because this would have disregarded important
efforts many counties had made in supervising low-level
offenders locally prior to 2011 Realignment.
The author's office indicates that rural counties, especially
those in the Central Valley, have not been provided with enough
funding to address the offenders rehabilitation needs as these
counties had very few community rehabilitation resources prior
to realignment. The author indicates that allocating these
additional funds strictly on an ADP basis will ensure that
Central Valley counties receive additional funding to support
rehabilitation programs for criminal offenders realigned under
2011 Realignment.
-- END --