BILL ANALYSIS
SB 678
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2009
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Juan Arambula, Chair
SB 678 (Leno) - As Amended: June 4, 2009
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Creates the California Community Corrections
Performance Incentives 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. Specifically, this bill :
1)Finds and declares all of the following:
a) In 2007, nearly 270,000 felony offenders were subject to
probation supervision in California's communities.
b) In 2007, out of 46,987 new admissions to state prison,
nearly 20,000 were felony offenders who were committed to
state prison after failing probation supervision.
c) Probation is a judicially imposed suspension of sentence
that attempts to supervise, treat, and rehabilitate
offenders while they remain in the community under the
supervision of the probation department. Probation is a
linchpin of the criminal justice system, closely aligned
with the courts, and plays a central role in promoting
public safety in California's communities.
d) Providing sustainable funding for improved,
evidence-based probation supervision practices and
capacities will improve public safety outcomes among adult
felons who are on probation. Improving felony probation
performance, measured by a reduction in felony probationers
who are sent to prison because they were revoked on
probation or convicted of another crime while on probation,
will reduce the number of new admissions to state prison,
saving taxpayer dollars and allowing a portion of those
state savings to be redirected to probation for investing
in community corrections programs.
SB 678
Page 2
2)Defines as follows:
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:
i) Enhancing public safety through the management and
reduction of offender risk while under felony probation
supervision and upon reentry from jail into the
community.
ii) 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.
iii) Maximizing offender restitution, reconciliation, and
restorative services to victims of crime.
iv) Holding offenders accountable for their criminal
behaviors and for successful compliance with applicable
court orders and conditions of supervision.
v) 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
SB 678
Page 3
by scientific research to reduce recidivism among
individuals under probation, parole, or post-release
supervision.
3)Authorizes each county to establish a county treasury a
Community Corrections Performance Incentive Fund (CCPIF), to
receive all amounts allocated to that county for purposes of
implementing this chapter.
4)Provides that in any fiscal year for which a county receives
moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter,
the moneys, including any interest, shall be made available to
the chief probation officer (CPO) of that county, within 30
days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund, for the
implementation of the community corrections program authorized
by this chapter.
a) The community corrections program shall be developed and
implemented by probation and advised by a local Community
Corrections Partnership.
b) The local Community Corrections Partnership shall be
chaired by the chief probation officer and comprised of the
following membership:
i) The presiding judge of the superior court, or
his or her designee.
ii) The chief administrative officer for the county.
iii) The district attorney.
iv) The public defender.
v) The sheriff.
vi) A chief of police.
vii) The head of the county department of social
services.
viii) The head of the county department of mental
health.
ix) The head of the county department of employment.
SB 678
Page 4
x) The head of the county alcohol and substance
abuse programs.
xi) The head of the county office of education.
xii) A representative from a community-based
organization with experience in successfully providing
rehabilitative services to persons who have been
convicted of a criminal offense.
c) Funds allocated to probation pursuant to this act shall
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, as defined under existing law, which may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
i) Implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and
needs assessments.
ii) 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.
iii) Providing more intensive probation supervision.
iv) 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.
v) Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation and
supervision programs and ensuring program fidelity.
d) The CPO shall have discretion 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 evaluate the effectiveness of those programs
and practices implemented with the funds provided pursuant
to this chapter. A CPO may petition the Administrative
SB 678
Page 5
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 the CPO can
demonstrate that the department is already devoting
sufficient funds to the evaluation of these programs and
practices.
e) Each probation department receiving funds under this
chapter shall maintain a complete and accurate accounting
of all funds received pursuant to this chapter.
5)Requires all community corrections programs funded pursuant to
this act to identify and track specific outcome-based measures
consistent with the goals of this act.
6)Asks the Administrative Office of the Courts, in consultation
with the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall specify
and define minimum required outcome-based measures, which
shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
a) The percentage of persons on felony probation who are
being supervised in accordance with evidence-based
practices.
b) The percentage of state moneys expended for programs
that are evidence-based, and a descriptive list of all
programs that are evidence-based.
c) Specification of supervision policies, procedures,
programs, and practices that were eliminated.
d) The percentage of persons on felony probation who
successfully complete the period of probation.
7)States that each CPO receiving funding shall provide an annual
written report to the Administrative Office of the Courts and
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
evaluating the effectiveness of the community corrections
program.
8)Necessitates the Administrative Office of the Courts, in
consultation with the chief probation officer of each county
and the CDCR, provide a quarterly statistical report to the
Department of Finance (DOF), including, but not limited to,
the following statistical information for each county:
SB 678
Page 6
a) The number of felony filings;
b) The number of felony convictions;
c) The number of felony convictions in which the defendant
was sentenced to the state prison;
d) The number of felony convictions in which the defendant
was granted probation;
e) The adult felon probation population;
f) The number of felons who had their probation revoked and
were sent to prison for that revocation; and,
g) The number of adult felony probationers sent to state
prison for a conviction of a new felony offense, including
when probation was revoked or terminated.
9)Commences 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 CDCR, the DOF, 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;
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 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
SB 678
Page 7
the report is being made; and,
e) Any recommendations regarding resource allocations or
additional collaboration with other state, regional,
federal, or local entities for improvements to this act.
10) Asks the DOF Director, in consultation with CDCR, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, to
calculate for each county a baseline probation failure rate
that equals the average number of adult felony probationers
sent to state prison during calendar years 2006 to 2008,
inclusive, as a percentage of the average adult felony
probation population during the same period.
11)Provides that for purposes of calculating the baseline
probation failure rate, the number of adult felony
probationers sent to prison shall include those adult felony
probationers sent to state prison for a revocation of
probation, as well as adult felony probationers sent to state
prison for a conviction of a new felony offense. The
calculation shall also include adult felony probationers sent
to prison for conviction of a new crime who simultaneously
have their probation term terminated.
12)Orders at the conclusion of each calendar year following the
enactment of this section, the DOF Director, in consultation
with CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief
Probation Officers of California, and the Administrative
Office of the Courts, to calculate the following for that
calendar year:
a) The cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and
supervise on parole a probationer sent to prison. This
calculation shall take into consideration factors,
including, but not limited to, the average length of stay
in prison and on parole for probationers, as well as the
associated parole revocation rates, and revocation costs.
b) The statewide probation failure rate. The statewide
probation failure rate shall be calculated as the total
number of adult felony probationers statewide sent to
prison in the previous year as a percentage of the
statewide adult felony probation population as of June 30
of that year.
SB 678
Page 8
c) A probation failure rate for each county. Each county's
probation failure rate shall be calculated as the number of
adult felony probationers sent to prison from that county
in the previous year as a percentage of the county's adult
felony probation population as of June 30 of that year.
d) An estimate of the number of adult felony probationers
each county successfully prevented from being sent to
prison. For each county, this estimate shall be calculated
based on the reduction in the county's probation failure
rate as calculated annually and the county's baseline
probation failure rate. In making this estimate, the DOF
Director, in consultation with CDCR, the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts,
shall adjust the calculations to account for changes in
each county's adult felony probation caseload in the most
recent completed calendar year as compared to the county's
adult felony probation population during the period 2006 to
2008, inclusive.
e) In calculating probation failure rates for the State and
individual counties, the number of adult felony
probationers sent to prison shall include those adult
felony probationers sent to state prison for a revocation
of probation, as well as adult felony probationers sent to
state prison for a conviction of a new felony offense. The
calculation shall also include adult felony probationers
who are sent to prison for conviction of a new crime and
who simultaneously have their probation terms terminated.
13)Mandates after the conclusion of each calendar year, the DOF
Director, in consultation with CDCR, the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of California,
and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall identify
the appropriate Probation Revocation Tier for each county for
which it was estimated that the county successfully prevented
any number of adult felony probationers from being sent to
state prison. The tiers shall be defined as follows:
a) Tier 1. A Tier 1 county is one which has a probation
failure rate that is no more than 25% higher than the
statewide probation failure rate.
SB 678
Page 9
b) Tier 2. A Tier 2 county is one which has a probation
failure rate that is more than 25% above the statewide
probation failure rate.
14)Requires, annually, the DOF Director, in consultation with
CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief
Probation Officers of California, and the Administrative
Office of the Courts, shall calculate a probation failure
reduction incentive payment for each eligible county, for the
most recently completed calendar year, as follows:
a) For a county identified as being in Tier 1, its
probation failure reduction incentive payment shall equal
the estimated number of probationers successfully prevented
from being sent to prison, multiplied by 45% of the costs
to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on
parole a probationer who was sent to prison.
b) For a county identified as being in Tier 2, its
probation failure reduction incentive payment shall equal
the estimated number of probationers successfully prevented
from being sent to prison, multiplied by 40% of the costs
to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on
parole a probationer who was sent to prison.
15)Makes it the intent of the Legislature for counties
demonstrating high success rates with adult felony
probationers to have access to performance-based funding as
provided for in this section.
16)Provides that on an annual basis, the DOF, in consultation
with CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief
Probation Officers of California, and the Administrative
Office of the Courts, shall calculate 5% of the savings to the
state attributed to those counties that successfully reduce
the number of adult felony probationers sent to state prison.
17)Requires the savings estimated to be used to provide high
performance grants to county probation departments for the
purpose of bolstering evidence-based probation practices
designed to reduce recidivism among adult felony probationers.
18)Allows county probation departments eligible for these high
performance grants to be those with adult probation failure
rates more than 50% below the statewide average in the most
SB 678
Page 10
recently completed calendar year.
19)States that a county probation department may receive a high
performance grant under this section in a year in which it
does not also receive a probation failure reduction incentive
payment. The CPO of a county that qualifies for both a high
performance grant and a probation failure reduction incentive
payment shall indicate to the Administrative Office of the
Courts, by a date designated by the Administrative Office of
the Courts, whether the CPO chooses to receive the high
performance grant or probation failure reduction payment.
20)Announces that the grants provided for in this section shall
be administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The Administrative Office of the Courts shall seek to ensure
that all qualifying probation departments that submit
qualifying applications receive a proportionate share of the
grant funding available based on the population of adults ages
18 to 25, inclusive, in each of the counties receiving the
grants.
21)Provides that if data of sufficient quality and of the types
required for the implementation of this act are not available
to the DOF Director, the DOF Director, in consultation with
the CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, shall use the best
available data to estimate probation failure reduction
incentive payments and high performance grants utilizing a
methodology that is as consistent with that described in this
act as is reasonably possible.
22)Distributes probation failure reduction incentive payments
and high performance grants calculated for any calendar year
to counties in the following fiscal year. The total annual
payment to each county shall be divided into four equal
quarterly payments.
23)Estimates of the total probation failure reduction incentive
payments and high performance grants to be provided to
counties in the coming fiscal year as part of the Governor's
proposed budget released no later than January 10 of each year
by the DOF. This estimate shall be adjusted by the DOF
Director, as necessary, to reflect the actual calculations of
probation revocation incentive payments and high performance
grants completed by the DOF Director, in consultation with the
SB 678
Page 11
CDCR, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief
Probation Officers of California, and the Administrative
Office of the Courts. This adjustment shall occur as part of
standard budget revision processes completed by the DOF in
April and May of each year.
24)Establishes a State Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Fund. Moneys budgeted for purposes of providing
probation revocation incentive payments and high performance
grants authorized, shall be deposited into this fund. Any
moneys deposited into this fund shall be administered by the
Administrative Office of the Courts and the share calculated
for each county probation department shall be transferred to
its Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund. The
Legislature may allocate up to 3% of the funds annually
deposited into the State Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Fund for use by the Administrative Office of the
Courts for the costs of administering this program.
25)Disallows the moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter to
be used to supplement, not supplant, any other state or county
appropriation for the chief probation officer or the probation
department.
26)Effectuates this chapter until January 1, 2015 and as of that
date is repealed unless a later enacted statute enacted before
January 1, 2015 deletes or extends that date.
27)Contains an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "probation" as the suspension of the imposition or
execution of a sentence and the order of conditional and
revocable release in the community under the supervision of a
probation officer. As used in this code, "conditional
sentence" means the suspension of the imposition or execution
of a sentence and the order of revocable release in the
community subject to conditions established by the court
without the supervision of a probation officer. [Penal Code
Section 1203(a).]
2)Provides that if a person is convicted of a felony and is
eligible for probation, before judgment is pronounced, the
court shall immediately refer the matter to a probation
SB 678
Page 12
officer to investigate and report to the court, at a specified
time, upon the circumstances surrounding the crime and the
prior history and record of the person, which may be
considered either in aggravation or mitigation of the
punishment. The probation officer shall immediately
investigate and make a written report to the court of his or
her findings and recommendations, including his or her
recommendations as to the granting or denying of probation and
the conditions of probation, if granted. [Penal Code Section
1203(b)(1) and (2)(A).]
3)Allows the court to impose and require any reasonable
conditions, as it may determine are fitting and proper to the
end of justice may be done, that amends may be made to society
for the breach of the law, for any injury done to any person
resulting from that breach, and generally and superficially
for the reformation and rehabilitation of the probationer, and
that should the probationer violate any terms or conditions
imposed by the court in the matter, it shall have the
authority to modify and change any and all the terms and
conditions to re-imprison the probationer in the county jail
within the limitations of the penalty of the public offense.
[Penal Code Section 1203.1(j).]
4)Finds and declares that the provision of probation services is
an essential element in the administration of criminal
justice. The safety of the public, which shall be a primary
goal through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions of
probation; the nature of the offense; the interests of
justice, including punishment, reintegration of the offender
into the community, and enforcement of conditions of
probation; the loss to the victim; and the needs of the
defendant shall be the primary considerations in the granting
of probation. It is the intent of the Legislature that
efforts be made with respect to persons who are subject to sex
offender registration who are transients and are on probation
to engage them in treatment. (Penal Code Section 1202.7.)
5)Allows probation departments to engage in activities designed
to prevent adult delinquency. These activities include
rendering direct and indirect services to persons in the
community. Probation departments shall not be limited to
providing services only to those persons on probation being
supervised, but may provide services to any adults in the
community. (Penal Code Section 1203.14.)
SB 678
Page 13
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "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 40% 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:
a) "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.
b) "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.
c) "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
SB 678
Page 14
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 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)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"Of the new admissions into California prisons - 40% are
offenders who have failed felony probation at the local level.
In 2007 alone, out of 46,987 new admissions to state prison,
nearly 20,000 were felony offenders who failed to meet the
terms of their probation. These failures are a significant
pipeline into our prisons.
"The state has been overlooking probation as an essential
partner in community corrections. 40% of those headed to
prison for new crimes are under community supervision - and
currently very little is being done to stop their cycle of
offending. There are very few resources to go around and
probation in California is severely underfunded.
"Further, many of the quarter of a million felony probationers
who are living in our communities under little supervision are
prime candidates for intensive intervention practices that can
be very successful at ending the cycle of offending, thus
saving tax dollars and preventing further victimization.
"SB 678 aims to reinvest in probation as a community corrections
strategy and support increased evidence-based probation
practices.
"Research confirms that better supervision, monitoring and
intermediate sanctions makes felony offenders more accountable
for their actions and de-escalates their criminal behavior."
SB 678
Page 15
3)Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) Recommendations : According
to the LAO, "County probation departments in California
supervise roughly 350,000 adult offenders in their community.
In addition to supervision, these departments also refer
probationers to a variety of rehabilitation and treatment
programs. Although the probation programs and supervision are
a local responsibility, their performance affects state-level
public safety programs. This is because adult offenders that
fail on probation can have their probation term revoked and be
sentenced to state prison, where it costs the state on average
approximately $49,000 per year to incarcerate an offender . .
. In order to improve probation outcomes and reduce state
prison costs, we recommend that the Legislature create a new
program that would provide financial incentives for county
probation departments to reduce their revocations to state
prison. The program would be funded from a portion of the
savings to the state that would result from a reduction in the
number of probationers entering the state correctional system.
Probation departments would use the financial incentive
payments to implement the best practices identified by
experts, thereby promoting better public safety outcomes."
[Taylor, LAO, Achieving Better Outcomes for Adult Probation
(May 29, 2009), p. 3.]
4)Best Evidence-Based Probation Practices : The LAO reviewed
national research on the effectiveness of probation in
improving public safety. The LAO's research identified a set
of best practices for probation. Those practices included:
(a) using risk and needs assessments, (b) referring
probationers to treatment programs, (c) maintaining manageable
probation officer caseloads, (d) using graduated sanctions for
probation violators, and (e) conducting periodic program
reviews and evaluations. (Id. at p. 13.) According to the
research, these practices resulted in more effective
supervision, reduced recidivism, better prioritization of
limited supervision resources, and reduced incarceration
costs.
a) Use of Risk and Needs Assessments : Corrections research
supports the use of risk and needs assessments of offenders
when they are first placed on probation and periodically
thereafter. These assessments are formal evaluations
relying on data from case file reviews, interviews, and
questionnaires of an offender's criminal history and causes
SB 678
Page 16
of criminal activity. Risk assessments provide a
consistent and accurate approach to distinguishing which
offenders pose a higher risk to community safety and,
therefore, should receive closer supervision if placed in
the community. Given limited resources, the risk and needs
assessments assist probation departments in determining
which offenders to prioritize for intensive rehabilitation
services. (See Id. at p. 13.)
b) Referrals to Community-Based Treatment Programs :
Evidence-based research finds that offenders are more
likely to be successful while on probation if they are
provided effective treatment and assistance programs that
reflect the need based on the use of the risk and needs
assessment. Assistance programs have included, drug
treatment, mental health counseling, employment assistance,
and anger management. The most effective programs are
those provided under a "cognitive-behavioral" approach.
The cognitive-behavioral approach addresses not only the
specific problems of the offender (such as drug use or
mental health issues), but also the patterns of thinking
and decision making that lead a person into his or her
criminal behavior. (See Id. at p. 13-14.)
c) Manageable Supervision Caseloads : At present, there are
no limits on the number of probationers that may be on a
probation officer's caseload. However, common sense and
literature on the subject finds that lower caseloads are
essential to effective probationer management. Lower
caseloads allow probation officers to have more contacts
with their offenders (such as in the form of unannounced
home visits and more frequent drug testing), thus making it
easier for officers to quickly identify probation
violations. Similarly, frequent probation contacts act as
a deterrent for probationers because of the increased risks
of obtaining a violation of probation and or be found
committing new crimes. However, research does indicate
that intensive supervision is generally only effective at
reducing recidivism when coupled with treatment-oriented
programs. The American Probation and Parole Association
suggests a caseload of 50 probationers per probation
officer for general (non-intensive) supervision of moderate
and high-risk offenders, and caseloads of 20-to-1 for
intensive supervision. (See Id. at 14-15.)
SB 678
Page 17
d) Invoking a System of Graduated Sanctions : According to
research, a key strategy to effectively intervene and
interrupt the cycle of re-offending is to establish a
system of graduated sanctions. This system involves the
use of punishments that are scaled to match the number and
severity of the violations. One would obviously impose
less severe sanctions (such as community service, fines, or
increased drug testing) for first-time and less serious
violations, while providing stricter sanctions (such as day
reporting centers, intensive supervision, flash
incarceration, and revocation to prison) for subsequent and
more serious violations. Studies also suggest that it is
important to implement probation violation sanctions
swiftly, consistently, and with certainty. (See Id. at
15-16.)
e) Periodic Program Reviews : It is important not only to
implement the right types of programs and practices, but to
implement them well. Implemented curriculums must be
instituted with qualified and well-trained staff, and that
programs are delivered to the types of offenders for which
they were designed. For this reason, several states (such
as Oregon) utilize program assessment tools to measure
program fidelity, a measurement of how well the program or
practice is implemented. As a result, these states are
better able to ensure that state- and county-funded
programs for probationers are effective.
In addition to measuring program fidelity, it is important to
collect data on probationer outcomes that can indicate what
strategies and programs are most effective at successfully
rehabilitating offenders. For example, if a substantial
number of probationers enrolled in a particular program end
up violating their probation terms, this could indicate
that the program is not effective. More importantly,
program outcome data will enable probation departments and
policy makers to replace ineffective programs, improve
underperforming programs, and expand successful programs.
Data on program outcomes can also help determine which
programs are most cost-effective in reducing recidivism and
thus assist policy makers in the allocation of limited
financial resources for probation. (See Id. at 15.)
5)The Current System Creates an Unintended Incentive to Revoke
Probation : The current funding structure for adult probation
SB 678
Page 18
may inadvertently provide a fiscal disincentive for counties
to successfully retain adult felon offenders on probation
where appropriate. When a probationer commits a violation or
new crime, probation officers must decide whether to recommend
to the court that the offender be retained on probation at
county expense or sent to state prison. (See Penal Code
Section 1203.2.)
Probation department officials indicate that this is primarily
because they often lack sufficient resources to properly
supervise and treat these repeat offenders. In contrast,
there is comparatively little cost to the county for
undertaking the process needed to send the offender to state
prison. In addition, sending violators to state prison allows
probation departments to prioritize their limited resources
for supervising those offenders who are more amenable to
supervision and treatment. The consequence of these fiscal
incentives is that some offenders who could be safely and
successfully supervised at the local level, if more resources
were available for this purpose, are instead sent to state
prison at a greater cost to taxpayers. The state's over
reliance on prison as punishment is making the public less
safe, not more safe. When offenders are sent to prison, they
are more likely to re-offend than if they serve probation or
community-based sentences.
6)Argument in Support : According to the Little Hoover
Commission , "In its 2007 report, Solving California's
Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out, the Commission found
that even though judges have discretion in sentencing
low-level offenders to probation, county jail or state prison,
their discretion is implicitly limited by the lack of
community corrections and probation resources available at the
local level.
"Lacking local alternatives, many offenders who could be
sentenced to county jail, probation or other community-based
punishment options are sent to prison. In doing so, the state
squanders its most expensive resource on low-level offenders
who could be more effectively supervised by local authorities.
As a result, prisons are overcrowded, the corrections health
care system is under federal receivership and a federal
three-judge panel is threatening to order the release of
thousands of offenders from prison to bring the state system
into constitutional compliance.
SB 678
Page 19
"In its 2007 study, the Commission found that approximately
two-thirds of felons released to parole for the first time
from state prison were incarcerated in a state facility for
less than a year. These short prison stints do little for
public safety, but they do disrupt families and the
communities where these offenders come from and return to, and
diminish the potential for offenders to get and keep jobs,
maintain housing and become law-abiding citizens.
"The Commission found that the absence of a seamless and
integrated state-local corrections system in California is
exacerbated because probation is treated almost solely as a
local responsibility. California is one of just two states in
which local government is the primary source of money for
probation services.
"The Commission recommended that the state reallocate resources
to assist counties in expanding local capacity for offenders
including jail space, drug treatment programs, day reporting
centers and other locally based punishment options. It also
recommended that the state reallocate resources to assist
counties in expanding intensive probation as an alternative
sanction to jail or prison and to enhance crime prevention.
"SB 678 addresses the Commission's recommendations by
authorizing counties to expand evidence-based community
corrections programs and probation services with funding
provided by the stat through a reallocation of resources. For
these reason, the Commission supports this measure."
7)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Public
Defenders Association (CPDA), "The problem with this bill is
that 100% of the CCPIF monies are directed to the CPO of each
county, who, while required to receive input from the
Community Corrections Partnership advisory board, ultimately
decides how funds are allocated. SB 678 presupposes that each
Probation Department is a clinically trained treatment
provider. In reality, Probation should be required to utilize
individual needs-based assessments produced by trained
clinicians, such as licensed clinical social workers,
including those employed by county Probation, the Department
of Mental, or the Public Defender. Such needs-based
assessments must be instrumental in formulating the various
recommendations that focus on treatment needs and successful
SB 678
Page 20
reintegration into the community.
"Evidence-based probation supervision practices improve public
safety outcomes to the extent they are paired with actual
services - mental health, substance abuse, trauma recovery,
academic and vocational to name a few - which are themselves
evidence based or represent promising practices. SB 678 fails
to value and appreciate the critical role of other criminal
justice system partners. First, the drug treatment court
model adopts a problem solving, holistic approach, combining
intensive judicial supervision as well as positive
reinforcement and graduated sanctions as appropriate. Public
Defenders have championed this model for decades, and the
results speak for themselves; in general, 80% of drug
treatment court participants succeed and do not recidivate.
Many entering the criminal justice system suffer from
undiagnosed or under-diagnosed and/or untreated co-occurring
disorders, that is, a combination of mental health disorders
and substance abuse.
"Yet, SB 678 would not mandate that a single dollar be actually
spent on funding for or increasing capacity of evidence-based
treatment services, and does not even consider the possibility
of residential treatment services or a focus on employment
training and job placement. The success of Californians on
felony probation depends substantially on competent and
appropriate services. SB 678 relies on intensive probation
supervision to achieve or facilitate everything that is
needed. Not only does SB 678 fail to mandate funds for
treatment and require the participation of critical partners
including the courts, prosecution, and public defender, but it
also fails to property integrate positive reinforcement
incentives for the individual who is placed on felony
probation, to succeed.
"CPDA will support SB 678 if the bill were amended as follows:
a) "Direct that the CPO of each county direct the
allocation of a specific percentage of the CCPIF monies to
those service providers who have proven expertise in
conducting needs-based assessments and providing
evidence-based treatment services including substance abuse
and mental health treatment.
i) "Probation must utilize trained social workers and
SB 678
Page 21
other clinicians to conduct the individual needs-based
assessments to ensure that the assessments are accurate
and appropriately informed.
ii) "Inasmuch as Probation Departments themselves are
not service providers and do not themselves provide
treatment, have few or no clinicians on staff and are
hampered by a detect and violate role that conflicts with
assess and treat and provide services.
iii) "Some counties have Probation staff trained in
techniques such as cognitive behavioral restructing,
Probation still must work closely with clinical treatment
staff who are outside of Probation and must be funded.
b) "SB 678 should explicitly include positive incentives
for probationers to participate in the evidence-based
programming, including, but not limited to, reduction in
the length of probation supervision and, as appropriate,
recommendations from Probation for Penal Code section 17(b)
reductions to misdemeanors for wobblers.
c) "While SB 678 requires that CPOs of each county dedicate
at least 5% of the funds for evaluations, it should specify
that such evaluations must be conducted by qualified
outside research institutions or agencies and not by the
Probation Departments. That will ensure independence and
validity of conclusions.
d) "SB 678 must require that some of the CCPIF monies be
designated for increasing court staff capacity, including
court clerks, as intensive judicial supervision will
enhance public safety and increase positive outcomes for a
great number of participants, w here needs assessments
reflect underlying trauma, substance abuse, o r mental
health disorders. In light of the drastic curtailments the
judiciary is incurring, it is unlikely the Bench will be
able to play the unique and essential role SB 678
contemplates unless the cost of increases in judicial
support staff necessitated by the increase in court
appearances, hearings and therapeutic staffing conferences
are underwritten."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
SB 678
Page 22
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Little Hoover Commission
Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744