BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
6
7
8
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
As Amended April 16, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Penal Code
AA:br
PROBATION :
PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDING FOR FELONY PROBATION SUPERVISION
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association; Los Angeles Probation Officers'
Union, AFSCME, Local 685; Little Hoover Commission;
Friends Committee on Legislation; San Diego County
District Attorney's Office
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE "California Community Corrections Performance Incentive
Act of 2009," which would establish a system of performance-based
funding to support evidence-based practices relating to THE
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageB
supervision of adult felony probationers, BE ENACTED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact the "California Community
Corrections Performance Incentive Act of 2009," which would
establish a system of performance-based funding to support
evidence-based practices relating to the supervision of adult
felony probationers. The bill would provide a formula-based
system for sharing state savings with probation for purposes of
improved supervision of felony probationers when those savings
are achieved as a result of reduced prison admissions
attributable to improved felony probation outcomes, as
specified.
Current law generally authorizes courts to grant probation to
persons convicted of crimes, except as specified. (See Penal
Code 1203 et seq.)
Current law provides for the offices of adult probation
officer, assistant adult probation officer, and deputy adult
probation officer. (Penal Code 1203.5; 1203.6; Code of
Civil Procedure 131.3 et seq.) "Except where a separate
office of adult probation officer has been created by local
charter, probation officers, assistant probation officers, and
deputy probation officers appointed under the Juvenile Court
Law are ex officio adult probation officers, assistant adult
probation officers, and deputy adult probation officers." (3
Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Punishment 503 (some citations
omitted); Penal Code 1203.5.)
This Bill
This bill would enact the "California Community Corrections
Performance Incentive Act of 2009," with the following features
and requirements:
Local "Community Corrections Performance Incentive Fund"
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageC
This bill would authorize any county to establish in each county
treasury a "Community Corrections Performance Incentive Fund"
("CCPIF") to receive all amounts allocated to that county for
purposes of implementing the provisions of this bill, as
specified.
This bill would require that moneys in a CCPIF be allocated to
the chief probation officer in his or her capacity as head of
the county probation department responsible for supervising
adult felony probationers to implement the community corrections
program authorized by this bill.
Use of Funds
This bill would require that funds allocated to probation
pursuant to its provisions be "used to provide supervision and
rehabilitative services for adult felony offenders subject to
probation, and shall be spent on evidence-based community
corrections practices and programs, which may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
A. Implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and
needs assessments.
B. Implementing and expanding intermediate sanctions
that include, but are not limited to, electronic
monitoring, mandatory community service, home
detention, day reporting, restorative justice
programs, work furlough programs, and incarceration in
county jail for up to 90 days.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageD
C. Providing more intensive probation supervision.
D. Expanding the availability of evidence-based
rehabilitation programs including, but not limited to,
drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment,
anger management, cognitive behavior programs, and job
training and employment services.
E. Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation and
supervision programs and ensuring program fidelity."
This bill would authorize the chief probation officer to "spend
funds on any of the above practices and programs consistent with
this act but, at a minimum, shall devote at least 5% of all
funding received to expanding the availability of rehabilitation
programs and evaluating the effectiveness of those programs."
This bill would authorize a chief probation officer to "petition
the Administrative Office of the Courts to have this restriction
waived, and the Administrative Office of the Courts shall have
the authority to grant such a petition, if there is already
sufficient availability of evidence-based programs for adult
probationers in that jurisdiction."
Local "Community Corrections Partnership"
This bill would require that the community corrections program
funded by its provisions be developed and implemented by
probation and advised by a local "Community Corrections
Partnership" chaired by the chief probation officer and
comprised of the following membership:
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageE
The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
The chief administrative officer for the county.
The district attorney.
The public defender.
The sheriff.
A chief of police.
The head of the county department of social services.
The head of the county department of mental health.
The head of the county department of employment.
The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
programs.
The head of the county office of education.
A representative from a community-based organization
with experience in successfully providing rehabilitative
services to persons who have been convicted of a criminal
offense.
Local Administrative and Reporting Requirements for the Funds
This bill would require probation departments receiving these
funds to "maintain a complete and accurate accounting of all
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageF
funds received," as specified.
This bill would require community corrections programs funded
pursuant to its provisions to "identify and track specific
outcome-based measures consistent with the goals of this act."
This bill would require the Administrative Office of the Courts,
in consultation with the Chief Probation Officers of California,
to "specify and define minimum required outcome-based measures,
which shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
following:
(1) The percentage of persons on felony probation
who are being supervised in accordance with
evidence-based practices.
(2) The percentage of state moneys expended for
programs that are evidence-based, and a
descriptive list of all programs that are
evidence-based.
(3) Specification of supervision policies,
procedures, programs, and practices that were
eliminated.
(4) The percentage of persons on felony probation
who successfully complete the period of
probation."
This bill would require each probation department receiving
funding pursuant to this bill to "provide an annual written
report to the Administrative Office of the Courts evaluating the
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageG
effectiveness of the community corrections program, including,
but not limited to, the data described (above)."
State Administrative and Reporting Requirements
This bill would require that, "(c)ommencing no later than 18
months following the initial receipt of funding pursuant to this
act and annually thereafter, the Administrative Office of the
Courts, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), the Department of Finance and the Chief
Probation Officers of California, shall submit to the Governor
and the Legislature a comprehensive report on the implementation
of this act. The report shall include, but not be limited to,
all of the following information:
a) The effectiveness of the community corrections
program based on the reports of performance-based
outcome measures required (by this bill) . . . .
b) The percentage of felony probationers whose
probation was revoked for the year on which the
report is being made.
c) The percentage of felony probationers who were
convicted of crimes during their term of probation
for the year on which the report is being made.
d) The impact of the moneys appropriated pursuant
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageH
to this act to enhance public safety by reducing the
percentage and number of felony probationers whose
probation was revoked for the year being reported on
for probation violations or new convictions, and to
reduce the number of felony probationers who are
sent to prison for the year on which the report is
being made.
e) Any recommendations regarding resource
allocations or additional collaboration with other
state, regional, federal, or local entities, or
other for improvements to this act."
Funding; Administration by the Administrative Offices of the
Courts
This bill would provide funding for the program described by
this bill through the following formula and process:
Appropriation Based on Calculated Savings
This bill would provide that the Legislature shall annually
appropriate to the Administrative Office of the Courts 50% of
the cost savings calculated pursuant to the formula described
below, to be deposited into the CCPIF of each county as follows:
(1) Twenty percent of the state's savings
attributable to that county, divided by 50%, as
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageI
specified, where the county's felony probation
revocation rate for that year is less than the
baseline felony probation revocation rate, as
specified;
(2) Forty percent of the state's savings attributable
to the county, divided by 50%, as specified, where
the county's felony probation revocation rate for
that year is at least 5% less than the baseline
felony probation revocation rate, as specified;
(3) One hundred percent of the state's savings
attributable to the county, divided by 50%, as
specified, where the county's felony probation
revocation rate for that year is at least 10% less
than the baseline felony probation revocation rate,
as specified.
Baseline Calculation
This bill would require the Director of Finance, in consultation
with CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, to calculate a baseline
felony probation revocation rate for each county based on the
average number of felony probationers who entered state prison
from that county for the fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08, and
2008-09 as a result of a probation revocation or conviction for
a new offense while on probation.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageJ
Annual Calculation of State Savings
This bill would require, for the 2009-10 fiscal year, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Director of Finance, in consultation
with CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, to "calculate costs to CDCR
that have been avoided, including costs associated with
incarceration, community supervision, and parole revocations and
revocation proceedings, due to reductions, calculated for each
county and statewide, in the percentage of people on supervised
felony probation whose probation is revoked and who are
sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in state prison, or
who while on supervised probation are admitted to state prison
after a conviction for a new offense, based on all of the
following:
(1) The felony probation revocation rate for each
county based on the number of felony probationers
who entered state prison from that county as a
result of revocation of probation.
(2) The felony probation revocation rate for each
county based on the number of felony probationers
who entered state prison from that county as a
result of a conviction of a new felony while on
probation.
Miscellaneous Funding Provisions
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageK
This bill would require that the moneys it appropriates be used
to supplement, not supplant, any other state or county
appropriation for the chief probation officer or the probation
department.
This bill would appropriate up to 3% of moneys appropriated to
the Administrative Office of the Courts for the costs of
administering this program, as specified.
This bill would provide that, with respect to any funds
remaining in the CCPIF not allocated as specified, amounts from
those unused remaining funds may be awarded to chief probation
officers for counties that have achieved no reduction in the
baseline set for their county as follows:
(1) Grants shall be competitive, based on grant
applications which demonstrate the applicant's
ability to apply awarded funding as specified.
(2) Awards shall be limited to the following
purposes:
(A) Assessing the county's current
community corrections practices and
programs.
(B) Identifying any deficiencies in
those practices and programs which may be
the basis for the county's felony
probation revocation rate.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageL
(C) Implementing evidence-based
community corrections strategies
authorized by this act.
(3) Awards shall be awarded to one county for no
more than two fiscal years.
(4) Awards shall not exceed 10 percent of a county's
maximum allocation as specified.
(5) The moneys appropriated shall be used to
supplement, not supplant, any other state or county
appropriation for the chief probation officer or the
probation department.
This bill would provide that funds unexpended by county
probation departments at the end of the fiscal year in which
they are awarded may, with the approval of the Administrative
Office of the Courts, be carried over into the next fiscal year
if such funds constitute no more than 10% of the total funding.
This bill would provide that unexpended funds in excess of 10%
of the total funding awarded, or funds not approved by the
Administrative Office of the Courts to be carried over into the
next fiscal year, shall be returned to the CCPIF for purposes
consistent with this section.
This bill would specify that moneys received through
appropriations pursuant to its provisions shall be used for
purposes described above.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageM
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other
provision, none of the calculated savings shall be appropriated
to any CCPIF where there is no reduction under the baseline, as
specified.
Definitions
This bill would establish the following definitions for purposes
of its provisions:
a) "Community corrections" means the placement of
persons convicted of a felony offense under probation
supervision, with conditions imposed by a court for a
specified period.
b) "Chief probation officer" means the chief
probation officer for the county or city and county
in which an adult offender is subject to probation
for the conviction of a felony offense.
c) "Community Corrections Program" means a program
established pursuant to this act consisting of a
system of felony probation supervision services
dedicated to all of the following goals:
1) Enhancing public safety through the
management and reduction of offender risk
while under felony probation supervision and
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageN
upon reentry from jail into the community.
2) Providing a range of probation
supervision tools, sanctions, and services
applied to felony probationers based on a
risk/needs assessment for the purpose of
reducing criminal conduct and promoting
behavioral change that results in reducing
recidivism and promoting the successful
reintegration of offenders into the
community.
3) Maximizing offender restitution,
reconciliation, and restorative services to
victims of crime.
4) Holding offenders accountable for
their criminal behaviors and for successful
compliance with applicable court orders and
conditions of supervision.
5) Improving public safety outcomes for
persons placed on probation for a felony
offense, as measured by their successful
completion of probation and commensurate
reduction in the rate of felony probationers
sent to prison as a result of a probation
revocation or conviction of a new crime.
d) "Evidence-based practices" refers to supervision
policies, procedures, programs and practices demonstrated
by scientific research to reduce recidivism among
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageO
individuals under probation, parole, or post-release
supervision.
Legislative Findings
This bill would make specified legislative findings and
declarations.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125% (an average
of 4% annually) over the past 20 years, growing from 76,000
inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the state's population
growth rate for the age cohort with the highest risk of
incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageP
the principal defendant, declared a state of emergency
in 2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageQ
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The authors state:
Adult probation is a ticking time bomb waiting to go
off. Currently, there are large numbers - 200,000 or
more - of adult felons on probation. Forty percent of
new admissions to state prison are offenders who have
been sent to prison because they failed on felony
probation. That means forty percent of those headed to
prison for new crimes were under community supervision,
but because probation is so sorely under-resourced very
little can be done to stop their cycle of offending.
Many of these lower level offenders are prime
candidates for intensive intervention practices that
can be very successful at ending the cycle of
offending, saving tax dollars, preventing further
victimization and making our communities safer.
This bill is designed to reduce the felony probation
failure rate by investing in probation and achieving
three key goals:
-----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageR
1. This bill will reduce crime in
California's communities through a community
corrections strategy focused on increasing
the supervision and management of felony
offenders on probation.
2. This bill will reduce prison
overcrowding, not by early release but by
decreasing the criminal activity of those
already on felony probation. The bill
actually makes offenders MORE accountable for
their actions by providing better
supervision, monitoring and intermediate
sanctions that will change their behavior.
By improving the public safety outcomes for
adult felons who now are failing felony
probation, this bill will stem the tide of
those going to prison by de-escalating their
criminal behavior.
3. This bill will establish sustainable
funding for enhanced adult felony probation
through performance incentive funding. As
felony probation supervision and management
improves, measured by reductions in felony
probationers who are committing crimes or
failing probation conditions, communities
experience less crime and the state saves
money. Under performance incentive funding,
a portion of these state savings are shared
with probation for further adult probation
services.
Funding for this program is based on improved public
safety outcomes for persons on felony probation. State
savings will accrue from reduced prison admissions
attributable to improved felony probation supervision
and management resulting in less crime. Funding will
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageS
support evidence-based probation practices and
programs, including improved supervision and
monitoring, that decrease crime by changing criminal
behavior while on probation.
This bill, once implemented, will mean sustainable
funding for probation and community corrections
programs, stable reductions in crime among felony
probationers, and a decline in prison commitments as a
result of improved public safety at the local level.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained in detail above, this bill essentially would
establish a system of performance-based funding to support
evidence-based practices relating to the supervision of adult
felony probationers. The bill would provide a formula-based
system for sharing state savings with probation for purposes of
improved supervision of felony probationers when those savings
are achieved as a result of reduced prison admissions
attributable to improved felony probation outcomes.
3. The Current Condition of Probation
Many experts and practitioners have underscored the lack of
resources currently available for supervising adult
probationers. The Chief Probation Officers of California, which
is the sponsor of this bill, explains:
Probation departments throughout the state are
suffering from increasing caseloads and static
funding sources. Currently, there are about 305,000
adult offenders (approximately 25% are between the
ages of 18-25) on probation with only 1,450 deputy
probation officers supervising them. Approximately
52 % of all adult probationers are placed on "Banked"
caseloads. Banked caseloads are administratively
supervised which means that there is little
opportunity to intervene in the offenders course of
current criminal behavior. This leads to a
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageT
percentage continuing on a path which leads to local
jail time or directly to state prison. The results
of this situation are negatively affecting public
safety through continued recidivism, the lack of
accountability and no measurable changes in the
competency development of offenders. High ratios of
offenders to officers, also reduces the offenders
respect and expectations of the criminal justice
system.<3>
In June of 2003, the Probation Services Task Force Final Report
was issued by the Judicial Council and the California State
Association of Counties. The report was the product of 18
court, county and probation professionals who spent nearly three
years studying a broad range of issues relating to probation in
California. The report explained:
Probation occupies a unique and central position in the
local and state justice structure. It serves as a
linchpin of the criminal and juvenile justice systems
and is the one justice system partner that regularly
collaborates with all stakeholders as an offender moves
through the system. Probation connects the many
diverse stakeholders, including law enforcement; the
courts; prosecutors; defense attorneys; community-based
organizations; mental health, drug and alcohol, and
other service providers; the community; the victim; and
the probationer.
The role and identity of probation departments have
evolved substantially over the years, with developments
in the past decade showing extraordinary innovation in
the face of fiscal challenge. Substantial variation
exists in the types of services offered in each of the
58 counties. While state law mandates certain
probation services in all counties, other programs are
tested on a pilot or otherwise limited-term basis,
supported by a fixed cycle of grant funding. Local
-----------------------
<3> See
http://67.199.72.34/php/Information/Papers/APSProposal.doc.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageU
needs, community requirements, funding constraints, and
the absence of statewide standards in most core program
areas have encouraged the growth of services and
programs that best fit local needs. . . . <4>
Probation departments are funded through a mix of
federal and state grants, local funds, and offender
fees. Probation department budget increases seen in
the late 1990s and up to 2002 have been supported
largely by one-time grants and other unstable funding
sources. It is highly unlikely that counties will be
able to increase needed probation department resources
in the foreseeable future. As California navigates a
period of severe fiscal uncertainty, the need for a
stable funding base becomes increasingly critical.<5>
The 2003 report included the following recommendations relevant
to this bill:
RECOMMENDATION 1: Probation departments must have
stable and adequate funding to protect the public and
ensure offender accountability and rehabilitation.
. . .
RECOMMENDATION 3: Probation standards and guidelines
should be developed and maintained to enhance the
delivery of services to courts, communities, victims,
and probationers.
. . .
RECOMMENDATION 5: Probation departments should
incorporate measurable outcomes in developing goals
and objectives.
. . .
RECOMMENDATION 9: Probation departments should
----------------------
<4> Id., p. 39.
<5> Id., p. 61.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageV
establish a graduated continuum of services and
sanctions to respond to the needs of each offender.
. . .
RECOMMENDATION 11: Courts and counties should
develop and implement partnerships and work
collaboratively to ensure appropriate levels of
services for adult and juvenile offenders.<6>
4. Community Corrections
This bill is based on an approach recommended by many experts
and employed by at least one other state, Arizona,<7> for
improving public safety by strengthening community corrections.
For example, based on the October 2008 Summit of Judicial
Leaders on Sentencing, Community Corrections, and Evidence-Based
Practice, the Advisory Committee to the Summit included the
following recommendations to the Judicial Council of California:
In order to reduce recidivism by offenders placed on
probation while holding probationers accountable, the
Council should develop statewide strategies to
implement evidence-based sentencing (EBS) practices
and principles of evidence-based practice (EBP) in
the sentencing and supervision of offenders placed on
probation.
. . .
In order to reduce recidivism by offenders placed on
probation while holding probationers accountable, the
Council should develop strategies to strengthen adult
probation services and implement key recommendations
of the 2003 Report of the Probation Services Task
Force.
. . .
----------------------
<6> Id., Executive Summary, p. 8-9.
<7> See SB 1476, Arizona, enacted in 2008.
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageW
In order to improve public safety, reduce recidivism
by offenders supervised in the community, and more
effectively hold those offenders accountable, the
Council should establish a California Commission on
Community Corrections to propose a new,
comprehensive, and coordinated system of community
supervision and corrections for California.
In its December 2008 report, Policy Framework to Strengthen
Community Corrections, the Pew Center on the States Public
Safety Performance Project described national failure rates for
offenders that are equally apt for California:
. . . (M)ore than 95 percent of inmates are
eventually released back to the community. Add in
offenders on probation, parole or other post-prison
supervision and there are now 7.3 million American
adults under correctional control on any given day.
The corrections system costs states nearly $50
billion a year, and federal and local governments
billions more.
(More)
That kind of money might be justified if it were
dramatically cutting crime. But it's not. More than
40 percent of probationers do not complete their
probation period successfully and more than half of
parolees end up back behind bars within three years.
While repeat offenders are major drivers of prison
growth and costs, so are people who have broken the
rules of their probation or parole release but who
have not committed a new crime. Offenders who
violate their supervision conditions account for a
significant portion of prison admissions, reducing
space available for violent and chronic criminals.
These high failure rates stem in large part from
overwhelmed community supervision agencies. While
national attention has focused on the dramatic rise
of incarceration, the probation and parole
populations have risen just as fast. The agencies
responsible for supervising these 5 million
offenders, however, haven't received nearly enough
resources or authority to keep up.
. . . More than 25 years of research has identified
a series of policies and practices that can make
substantial cuts in recidivism rates. Policy makers
in several states have enacted reforms that help
corrections agencies adopt these "evidence-based
practices" by providing fiscal incentives, clearing
obstacles, enhancing their authority, and tracking
their results.
. . .
The measures below were selected as part of the
initial framework; others may be added as state and
local leaders continue to innovate. And though
individual sections would have impact if adopted
alone, taken together they offer policy makers a
powerful opportunity to help reduce victimization and
(More)
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageY
control corrections costs.<8>
The measures identified by the Pew Report include the following:
Evidence-based practices;
Earned compliance credits;
Administrative sanctions for probation violations;
Performance-incentive funding based on improved
outcomes; and
Performance measurement.<9>
With respect to performance-based funding the Pew Report
includes the following relevant observations:
Strong community corrections agencies can cut
recidivism, but adequate funding for them is a
perennial challenge in the criminal justice system.
. . . People on probation and parole who violate
their conditions of supervision are a major driver of
prison populations and costs. . . .
States and localities can realign their fiscal
relationships in ways that reward performance. If
corrections agencies are successful in cutting the
rate of offenders sent back to prison for new crimes
or rule violations, the state reaps savings by
avoiding prison costs. By sharing some of those
savings with the successful agencies, states can help
build stronger community corrections systems without
appropriating new funds. The incentive funding can
be used to implement evidence based practices,
provide effective substance abuse treatment and other
risk reduction programs, and victim services. . .
.<10>
---------------------------
<8> Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections, supra
in text, p. 1.
<9> Id., p. 2.
<10> Id., Performance Incentive Funding Chapter, p. 1.
SB 678 (Leno and Benoit)
PageZ
WOULD THIS BILL IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY IN CALIFORNIA?
WOULD THIS BILL ALSO LEAD TO REDUCTIONS IN PRISON OVERCROWDING?
***************