BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 325
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 325 (Alquist)
          As Amended  June 11, 2009
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :36-0  
           
           PUBLIC SAFETY       7-0         APPROPRIATIONS      15-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Arambula, Hagman,         |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen,         |
          |     |Ammiano, Furutani,        |     |Ammiano, Coto, Davis,     |
          |     |Gilmore, Hill, Ma         |     |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall,    |
          |     |                          |     |Harkey, Miller, John A.   |
          |     |                          |     |Perez, Skinner, Solorio,  |
          |     |                          |     |Audra Strickland,         |
          |     |                          |     |Torlakskon                |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :   Provides additional protocol for an agency  
          administering the State-Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex  
          Offenders (SARATSO) and believing that a score does not  
          represent the person's true risk level to submit the case to  
          experts, as specified, for possible override.  Specifically,  
           this bill  :   

          1)Provides that if the agency responsible for scoring the  
            SARATSO believes an individual's score does not represent the  
            person's true risk level, based on factors in the offender's  
            record, the agency may submit the case to the experts retained  
            by the SARATSO Review Committee to monitor the scoring of the  
            SARATSO. 

          2)Requires the experts, as specified, be guided by empirical  
            research in determining whether to raise or lower the risk  
            level.  Agencies that score the SARATSO shall develop a  
            protocol for submission of risk-level override requests to the  
            experts retained in accordance with provisions of law, as  
            specified. 

          3)Clarifies that the California Department of Corrections and  
            Rehabilitation (CDCR) assess every eligible person who is on  
            parole if the person was not assessed prior to release from  








                                                                  SB 325
                                                                  Page  2


            state prison. 

          4)Mandates CDCR and Department of Mental Health (DMH) record in  
            a database the risk assessment scores of persons assessed, as  
            specified, and any risk assessment score that was submitted to  
            CDCR by a probation officer, as required in existing law.

          5)Provides that beginning January 1, 2010, CDCR and DMH shall  
            send the risk assessment scores to the Department of Justice  
            (DOJ) Sex Offender Tracking Program not later than 30 days  
            after the date of the assessment.  The risk assessment score  
            of an offender shall be made part of his or her file  
            maintained by DOJ's Offender Tracking Program as soon as  
            possible without financial impact, but no later than January  
            1, 2012.

          6)Provides that eligible persons not assessed by CDCR while  
            incarcerated may be assessed as follows:

             a)   A person may be assessed upon request of the law  
               enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the person  
               is required to register as a sex offender.  The law  
               enforcement agency may enter into a memorandum of  
               understanding (MOU) with a probation department to perform  
               the assessment.  In the alternative, the law enforcement  
               agency may arrange to have personnel trained to perform the  
               risk assessment in accordance with existing law. 

             b)   Eligible persons not assessed may request that a risk  
               assessment be performed.  A request form shall be available  
               at registering law enforcement agencies.  The person  
               requesting the assessment shall pay a fee for the  
               assessment that shall be sufficient to cover the cost of  
               the assessment.  The risk assessment so requested shall be  
               performed either by the probation department, if a MOU is  
               established between the law enforcement agency and the  
               probation department, or by personnel who have been trained  
               to perform risk assessment in accordance with existing law.

          7)State that for purposes relating to administering the SARATSO,  
            an "eligible person" is defined as a registered sex offender  
            eligible for assessment pursuant to the official Coding Rules  
            designated for use with the risk assessment instrument by the  
            author of any SARATSO selected by the Review Committee, as  








                                                                  SB 325
                                                                  Page  3


            specified. 

          8)Eliminates from the definition of "eligible person" an  
            offender who has not been assessed within the previous five  
            years. 

          9)Provides that persons authorized to perform risk assessments  
            pursuant to existing law shall be immune from liability for  
            good-faith conduct, as specified. 

          10)Requires persons acting under authority from the SARATSO  
            Review Committee as an expert, as specified, to have access to  
            all relevant records concerning the offender. 

          11)Provides that if the probation officer has recommended that  
            the minor be transferred to the CDCR's Division of Juvenile  
            Justice pursuant to an adjudication for an offense requiring  
            him or her to register as a sex offender, the selected SARATSO  
            shall be used to assess the minor and the court shall receive  
            that risk assessment score into evidence.

          12)Retains a DMH representative on the SARATSO Review Committee  
            but states the Review Committee shall be staffed by CDCR and  
            any agreed changes to the SARATSO are to be posted by CDCR  
            rather than DMH.

          13)Makes various cross-references to provisions of law related  
            to probation.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee analysis:

          1)Ongoing GF costs in the range of $150,000, primarily to CDCR  
            to administer SARATSO Training and Review Committees, and to  
            contract with experts for training, and monitoring SARATSO  
            scoring and appeals. 

          Contract costs for experts alone could run in excess of  
            $100,000.  DOJ states the cost of a database to track SARATSO  
            scores is built into the cost of Violent Crime Information  
            Network enhancements scheduled for 2010 implementation, so  
            database costs should be minor.  CDCR and DMH currently record  
            SARATSO scores and forward to DOJ, so these recording and  
            reporting costs should be minimal.








                                                                  SB 325
                                                                  Page  4



          Costs to staff and administer the committee may be absorbable by  
            CDCR, though these costs will likely exceed $50,000.

          2)Potential offsetting cost avoidance to the extent this bill  
            narrows the pool of sex offenders required to undergo  
            assessment.  By specifying that offenders no longer on  
            probation or parole be assessed only upon request of local law  
            enforcement agencies - rather than requiring assessment -  
            existing, potentially state-reimbursable, local law  
            enforcement costs could be significantly reduced.  With a pool  
            of about 68,000 registered sex offenders eligible for  
            assessment, a 10% reduction in required assessments could save  
            about $500,000, assuming a cost of about $75 per assessment,  
            based on two hours per assessment scoring, plus training for  
            scorers.

           COMMENTS  :   According to the author, "Current law requires the  
          state and local governments to assess the risk of all registered  
          sex offenders prior to sentencing, upon release from prison or  
          jail and while living anywhere within the state of California.   
          In order for the state risk assessment committee to ensure that  
          these assessments are reliable, SB 325 provides that SARATSO  
          will monitor the consistency and quality of risk assessments,  
          and retain experts to train those who will oversee the training  
          of persons who will perform the risk assessments. 

          "The bill also gives the SARATSO Training Committee the  
          authority to arrange for experts to monitor scoring and answer  
          questions from the field about scoring, and to ensure scores are  
          empirically based and legally defensible.  Since legal  
          challenges to risk assessments are already being litigated in  
          the California courts, it is imperative these changes be made to  
          existing law. 

          "SB 325 sets up the proper checks and balances to ensure that  
          the law mandating the monitoring of high-risk sex offenders on  
          intensive caseloads and places the GPS monitoring systems on  
          high-risk offenders.  By ensuring these procedures are in place  
          we can depend on the reliability of the risk assessment and  
          defend against any legal challenges."

          Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this  
          bill.








                                                                  SB 325
                                                                  Page  5


           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)  
          319-3744 



                                                               FN:  0001752