BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1327 (Nguyen) - Criminal Justice Reinvestment Assessment
Grant Program of 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: March 28, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: Yes |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 25, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1327, an urgency measure, would establish a grant
program, and appropriate an unspecified sum from the General
Fund, to be administered by the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC), for the purpose of establishing and
implementing data reporting systems to be used by the counties
for criminal offenders who were impacted by 2011 Realignment, as
specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Grant program implementation : One-time appropriation in Fiscal
Year 2016-17 from the General Fund of an unspecified amount to
establish and implement the grant program. Initial costs would
include funding to assist counties in creating or expanding
existing infrastructure in order to consistently collect and
report specified information. Potential costs to meet the
actual need across counties to successfully establish and
implement a system of uniform reporting are unknown but would
likely be in excess of the high tens of millions of dollars.
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 1 of
?
Grant program ongoing : To the extent the initial appropriation
to "assist" counties to create/expand infrastructure is
insufficient to meet the data collection and reporting
mandates in the bill, the remaining costs to enable counties
to comply with the provisions of the bill would either 1)
require an additional subvention of funds (General Fund) if
applicable to Proposition 30 provisions, or, 2) could result
in significant state-reimbursable costs (General Fund).
County data reporting : Major ongoing General Fund costs, both
direct and/or state-reimbursable, potentially in excess of the
millions of dollars (General Fund) for counties to continually
collect and report the specified data. For example, costs to
comply with specified data reporting points such as "assessed
risk level" could be substantial.
BSCC administration : Resource costs in the range of $700,000
(General Fund) annually to BSCC to review local CCP plans,
administer the grants, compile the county-level data, and
submit the annual report.
Background: The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) noted in its
report, Corrections Realignment and Data Collection in
California (April 2014):
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 2 of
?
Realignment legislation did not dedicate funds for an evaluation
of the effects of realignment subsequent to its implementation,
nor did it provide counties with specific funds for assessing
the success rates of their local correctional strategies. This
was a missed opportunity. Through realignment, the state
effectively created 58 county-level policy laboratories. The
variation across counties in correctional practices creates an
ideal opportunity to identify cost-effective strategies and to
disseminate these best practices across the state. Yet, without
a consistent framework for data collection and evaluation,
weeding out failing strategies and identifying successful ones
will be a haphazard process.
Acquisition of the data necessary to identify effective
practices is a goal that is within reach. However, it will
require counties to make improvements in four areas: capturing
data, linking data across systems, standardizing definitions,
and upgrading technology to facilitate extraction of data for
multiple purposes. Addressing these obstacles will require
leadership and a directed use of available resources. But, if
counties can make these adjustments, there will be significant
benefits, including an improved ability to identify the most
effective strategies and target resources toward those
correctional interventions, an expanded base of evidence to
support difficult policy choices, and an increased ability to
share successful interventions. For the state as a whole,
increasing the capacity for data-driven practices at the county
level will result in a more efficient, effective, and
sustainable corrections system. It will also enable the state to
better track the overall results of realignment and to more
easily implement incentive-based funding in the future.
With regard to current data collection efforts, the BSCC-PPIC
Multi-County Study (MCS) is an ongoing effort to collect and
merge California state and county criminal justice data for the
purpose of evaluating the effects of key criminal justice
reforms and identifying effective recidivism-reduction policies
and practices. The MCS is a collaborative effort between the
PPIC, the BSCC, and 13 counties throughout the state. The data
collection effort has also benefited from the sharing of data
and information by the CDCR and the DOJ. The MCS dataset
captures a wide range of offender characteristics including
demographics, criminal histories, risk assessments, custody and
probation terms, programmatic interventions, and recidivism
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 3 of
?
outcomes.
This bill seeks to establish a framework and initial funding for
data collection and reporting systems across all counties and
enable the BSCC to compile and evaluate the statewide effects of
realignment on recidivism and overall public safety.
Proposed Law:
This bill would establish the "Criminal Justice Reinvestment
Assessment Grant Program of 2016," as specified:
BSCC Duties/Responsibilities
Requires the grant program to be administered by the
BSCC to award grants to assist counties with the creation
or expansion of infrastructure that allows each county to
consistently collect and report criminal justice
information, as specified.
Requires BSCC to review each county's assessment of
existing capacity to collect/report data and each community
corrections partnership's local plan identifying additional
resources needed to comply with the mandated data reporting
requirements.
On or before June 15, 2016, BSCC must submit a report to
the Legislature detailing the estimated need, cost, and
schedule for each county to consistently collect and report
the data as required in the bill.
Requires BSCC to establish minimum standards, funding
schedules, and procedures for awarding grants, which shall
take into consideration the size of the county, and its
demonstrated efforts and ability to report data prior to
January 1, 2017.
Requires the BSCC to give preference to counties that
have demonstrated efforts to independently collect data on
a countywide basis.
Requires BSCC to specify and define minimum required
data to be reported on felons "realigned" to the counties
under PC §1170(h) and felons released on postrelease
community supervision (PRCS), and prescribe the format in
which the data is to be reported.
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 4 of
?
Requires BSCC to compile the local reports by May 15th
of each year, beginning in 2017, and submit a report to the
Legislature and Governor summarizing the data reported by
the counties.
Appropriates an unspecified sum from the General Fund to
the BSCC in 2016-17 for the purpose of implementing the
grant program.
Authorizes BSCC to retain up to 5 percent of the
appropriation amount for administrative costs.
Local Reporting Responsibilities
Requires each local CCP to report to BSCC by June 1,
2016, on the county's capacity to collect and report the
data required by the bill. Each report is to include a
local plan that identifies the additional resources
necessary for that county to consistently collect and
report the required data.
On or before January 1, 2017, and annually thereafter,
requires counties to report, at a minimum: 1) 38 data
points for each individual sentenced as a jail felon
pursuant to PC § 1170(h), and, 2) 20 data points for each
individual released from state prison who is subject to
local supervision (PRCS).
Other Provisions
Contains codified legislative findings and declarations
generally concerning the Legislature's commitment to
reducing recidivism among criminal offenders.
Contains an urgency clause stating: "In order to ensure
that relevant data pertaining to the 2011 Realignment
Legislation addressing public safety are collected and
reported as soon as possible to allow stakeholders to
measure the effectiveness of this landmark change in public
safety policy, it is necessary that this bill go into
immediate effect."
Related
Legislation: SB 753 (Nielsen) 2015 was substantially similar to
this measure. SB 753 was held on the Suspense File of this
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 5 of
?
Committee.
SB 1097 (Nielsen) 2014 was substantially similar to SB 753 and
this measure. SB 1097 was held on the Suspense File of this
Committee.
Staff
Comments: This bill requires a one-time appropriation in
2016-17 from the General Fund of an unspecified amount to
establish and implement the grant program. Initial costs would
include funding to assist counties in creating or expanding
existing infrastructure in order to consistently collect and
report specified information. While the appropriation amount is
unspecified, the potential costs required to establish and
implement a uniform data reporting system in which counties
report data consistently could potentially cost in excess of the
high tens of millions of dollars. In order to link data across
systems, the costs could be significantly higher.
To the extent the initial appropriation to "assist" counties to
create or expand existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet
the data collection and reporting mandates in the bill, the
remaining costs to enable counties to comply with the bill's
provisions would result in either: 1) an additional subvention
of funds (General Fund) if the new costs to the counties would
be applicable under Proposition 30 provisions, or 2) significant
state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) to counties for the
costs above what was granted through the initial appropriation
to establish the infrastructure needed.
Once the reporting system is established and operating, the
state would also incur significant ongoing annual General Fund
costs, both direct and/or state-reimbursable, potentially in
excess of tens of millions of dollars for the increased duties
on counties to continually collect and report the specified
data. The requirement to report the data point "assessed risk
level" alone could incur substantial costs. The PPIC report
noted the following with respect to risk and needs assessments,
"Despite the importance of these data, practitioners do not
always gather or draw on these assessments. Although
widely used across probation departments, their use still varies
across sheriff's departments." (PPIC, Corrections Realignment
and Data Collection in California, April 2014, p. 12) Even for
probation departments that currently utilize risk assessments,
the cost of performing the risk assessments could potentially be
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 6 of
?
determined to be state-reimbursable by virtue of the mandated
reporting requirement of that assessment.
The BSCC is authorized to retain 5 percent of the total
appropriation for administrative costs. The BSCC has indicated
costs of $700,000 (General Fund) annually to administer the
grant program.
Proposition 30 (2012) provides that legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the
costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of
service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation shall apply
to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides
annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies shall not
be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required
by legislation described in this paragraph above the level for
which funding has been provided. Any costs in excess of the
initial grants provided to local agencies to cover the costs of
infrastructure upgrades/development and data reporting would
potentially require a subvention of funds, or alternatively,
could potentially be eligible for state reimbursement through
the mandate process. The ongoing costs to local agencies to
continue collecting and reporting data, would likewise
potentially be the responsibility of the state.
To the extent the data collection and reporting efforts are
successful would facilitate a more efficient and effective use
of the state and local investment in realignment as well as
positive outcomes through reduced recidivism and efficient use
of state funds.
Recommended
Amendments: This bill contains numerous codified legislative
findings and declarations. In the interest of code clarity and
efficiency, staff recommends this bill be amended to place the
findings and declarations in an uncodified section of the bill.
Staff recommends specifying an appropriation amount in the bill.
Staff also recommends an amendment to authorize the use of
federal funds to support the efforts of establishing or
enhancing the data reporting systems. As noted in the PPIC
report, the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG) program includes a funding category for "Planning,
evaluation, and technological improvements," that could
potentially be pursued.
SB 1327 (Nguyen) Page 7 of
?
Staff notes that the due dates specified in the bill are
ambitious and likely cannot be met. The bill requires each local
CCP to report to the BSCC before June 1, 2016, with an
assessment of its needs, and requires the BSCC to submit to the
Legislature by June 15, 2016 (two weeks), a report on the
estimated need, cost, and schedule for each county in order to
meet the collection and reporting requirements of this bill.
Additionally, each county is required to collect and report all
the data commencing on or before January 1, 2017, which would be
less than six months after the initial report to the
Legislature. For a county that requires extensive infrastructure
changes or development, this timeline will likely not be met.
The author may wish to consider revising the dates specified in
the bill to address this issue.
-- END --