BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 441|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 441
Author: Ducheny (D), et al
Amended: 5/28/09
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-4, 5/28/09
AYES: Kehoe, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Leno, Oropeza,
Wyland, Yee
NOES: Cox, Denham, Runner, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SUBJECT : Corrections: standards authority
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill enacts the following statutory
provisions relating to the Corrections Standards Authority
(CSA) to (1) remove CSA from the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation; and (2) expand CSA's existing duties
concerning studying crime in California to include best
practices in the field of crime prevention.
ANALYSIS : Current law creates in state government the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"),
headed by a secretary who is appointed by the Governor,
subject to Senate confirmation, and serves at the pleasure
CONTINUED
SB 441
Page
2
of the Governor. CDCR consists of Adult Operations, Adult
Programs, Juvenile Justice, the Corrections Standards
Authority, the Board of Parole Hearings, the State
Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison Industry
Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government Code
Section 12838 (a).)
Current law establishes within the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation the Corrections Standards
Authority and provides, as of July 1, 2005, any reference
to the Board of Corrections refers to the Corrections
Standards Authority ("CSA"). (Penal Code Section 6024.)
This bill provides that, commencing July 1, 2010, CSA shall
no longer be within the CDCR.
Current law imposes on CSA the duty to "make a study of the
entire subject of crime, with particular reference to
conditions in the State of California, including causes of
crime, possible methods of prevention of crime, methods of
detection of crime and apprehension of criminals, methods
of prosecution of persons accused of crime, and the entire
subject of penology, including standards and training for
correctional personnel, and to report its findings, its
conclusions and recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature at such times as they may require." (Penal
Code Section 6027.)
This bill amends this provision to require CSA to include
the study of best practices in the field of crime
prevention, and would make additional purely technical
corrections to this provision.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
CSA transition costs $20 $40 $40 General
SB 441
Page
3
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/29/09)
Chief Probation Officers of California
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states in
part, the Corrections Standards Authority, formerly known
as the California Board of Corrections, has long assisted
policy makers with thorough research related to crime
prevention, among other things, since its inception in 1944
and was once considered one of the most effective state
boards. In 2005, with the passage of SB 737 (Romero),
Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005, the Board of Corrections was
eliminated, along with the Correctional Peace Officer
Standards and Training, and their functions were
consolidated as the CSA under CDCR.
The overall reorganization effort was put forth as a
companion bill to the Governor's Reorganization Plan (GRP)
1, and reflected issues and recommendations brought forward
by the Little Hoover Commission, the Legislative Analyst's
Office, and Senate Budget Subcommittee #5 on Public Safety,
Labor & Veterans Affairs. Despite input on the
reorganization from all of these entities, larger issues
seemed to dominate the reorganization discussion at the
time, and little attention appears to have been dedicated
to have been dedicated to the decision to move the
well-respected Board of Corrections under CDCR.
Calvin Remington, former Ventura County Chief Probation
Officer and Board of Corrections member, was among the few
who addressed the issue. According to written testimony he
submitted to the Little Hoover Commission for their Public
Hearing on the Governor's Reorganization Plan #2, "I also
have some concerns about the change in the Board of
Corrections. It has served the counties well in its
current makeup. I agree that there is a need to expand
that organization's responsibilities and have been assured
that the relationship the counties now have with BOC will
not change in the reorganization."
SB 441
Page
4
David Steinhart, Director of the Commonwealth Juvenile
Justice Program, also expressed concern with the
reorganization, "In real-world terms today, the Board of
Corrections does most of this work-administering state
funds for local juvenile justice programs, inspecting local
facilities, and generating information on accepted
practices and standards. But the Board of Corrections is
terminated by this proposal, and is replaced by the
Corrections Standards Authority. Descriptions of the
state-local or community-corrections role of the
Corrections Standards Authority have shifted with each
draft of the Corrections Reorganization Plan."
In practice, partly due to staff attrition and new
leadership, the newly formed CSA has struggled to maintain
the support afforded the BOC. Under the direction of their
new Executive Director, Kurt Wilson, the CSA has improved
its image, but the issues of independence and fairness in
decisions that relate to local law enforcement continue to
be of concern.
This bill reorganizes the current Corrections Standards
Authority to provide a much needed independent state entity
with a broader mandate to enhance coordination between
state and local law enforcement on crime prevention
efforts, and to create a stronger partnership between
parole and probation programs, independently administered
at the state and local levels.
RJG:do 5/29/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****