BILL ANALYSIS
SB 678
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 27, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 678 (Leno/Benoit) - As Amended: June 25, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill creates the California Community Corrections
Performance Incentives Act of 2009 to establish a system of
performance-based funding to support evidence-based local
probation community corrections practices for the supervision of
adult felony probationers.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Major annual GF savings, likely in the tens of millions, to
the extent this act successfully enhances probation services,
resulting in a reduction of probation revocations to state
prison.
A similar version of this proposal adopted by the Budget
Conference Committee has been scored by the Department of
Finance (DOF) as a $30 million savings for the 2009-10 budget
year. These savings should increase significantly in the
out-years.
2)The 2009-10 Budget Act appropriates $45 million from federal
Byrne Justice Assistance grant funding to county probation
departments for grants consistent with the purposes of this
bill, including $424,000 to the Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC), which would administer the grant program in this
bill, for administrative purposes. Proponents of this measure
view these funds as essentially seed money for the program,
which is projected to significantly increase in the out-years
as programs take effect and expand.
3)DOF notes that if half of the 20,000 felony probationers
SB 678
Page 2
currently admitted into state institutions annually instead
remained on local probation caseloads with enhanced services
and review, the savings from reduced incarceration and parole
supervision would be about $255 million (GF). On the basis of
these figures, county community corrections programs could
receive about $127.3 million annually to enhance probation
staffing, practices, programs, etc.
4)DOF indicates its administrative workload required by this
measure is absorbable.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes each county to establish a Community Corrections
Performance Incentive Fund (CCPIF), to receive funds allocated
from the State CCPIF, as created by this bill, to implement
this act.
2)Requires the community corrections program to be developed and
implemented by the probation department as advised by a local
Community Corrections chaired by the CPO and specified
members.
3)Requires funds provided to probation pursuant to this act to
provide supervision and rehabilitative services for adult
felony offenders subject to probation, including:
Evidence-based risk and needs assessments; intermediate
sanctions, including electronic monitoring, community service,
home detention, day reporting, work furlough programs, and
county jail; more intensive probation supervision;
rehabilitation programs such as drug and alcohol treatment,
mental health treatment, anger management; and job training
and employment services.
4)Gives the CPO discretion to spend grant funds on any practices
and programs consistent with this act, and requires a minimum
of 5% of all funding to be used to evaluate efficacy.
5)For purposes of establishing funding criteria and eligibility,
requires DOF to calculate a baseline probation failure rate
that equals the average number of adult felony probationers
sent to state prison during calendar years 2006 to 2008, as a
SB 678
Page 3
percentage of the average adult felony probation population
during that period. The number of adult felony probationers
sent to prison shall include probation revocations, as well as
new felony offenses.
6)Requires DOF, at the conclusion of each calendar year, to
calculate:
a) The cost to the state to incarcerate probationers in
prison and supervise them on parole, including such factors
as average length of stay in prison and on parole for
probationers, as well as associated 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.
c) A probation failure rate for each county, per (b).
d) An estimate of the number of adult felony probationers
each county successfully prevented from being sent to
prison. This estimate shall be calculated based on the
annual reduction in the county's probation failure rate and
the county's baseline probation failure rate, accounting
for changes in adult felony probation caseload in the most
recent completed calendar year.
7)Requires, at the conclusion of each calendar year, DOF to
assign tier 1 or tier 2 status to each county based on
probation failure rates.
a) A Tier 1 county has a probation failure rate no more
than 25% higher than the statewide probation failure rate.
b) A Tier 2 county has a probation failure rate more than
25% above the statewide probation failure rate.
8)Requires DOF to calculate a "probation failure reduction
incentive payment" for each eligible county, for the most
recently completed calendar year, as follows:
a) For Tier 1 counties, the payment shall equal the
SB 678
Page 4
estimated number of probationers diverted from 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 Tier 2 counties, the payment shall equal the
estimated number of probationers diverted from 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.
c) Creates a high performance grant category for counties
documenting high success rates with adult felony
probationers - counties with adult probation failure rates
more than 50% below the statewide average in the most
recently completed calendar year. Requires DOF to calculate
5% of the savings to the state attributed to those counties
that reduce the number of adult felony probationers sent to
state prison and use these savings to provide grants to
probation departments for evidence-based practices designed
to reduce recidivism. The CPO of a county must choose
whether to receive a high performance grant or a probation
failure reduction payment.
9)Requires the AOC to administer the grant program. The
Legislature may allocate up to 3% of funds annually deposited
into the State Community Corrections Performance Incentives
Fund to the AOC for administrative costs.
10)Specifies if sufficient data is not available, DOF shall use
the best available data to estimate probation failure
reduction incentive payments and high performance grants using
methodology consistent with that referenced in this act.
11)Prohibits funding awarded pursuant to this act from being
used to supplant existing appropriations for county probation.
12)Requires a series of evaluations and reports.
a) All community corrections programs funded pursuant to
this act must identify and track specified outcome-based
measures.
b) The AOC must provide measurable performance outcomes,
SB 678
Page 5
including the percentage of felony probationers supervised
in accordance with evidence-based practices, the percentage
of state funds spent for evidence-based programs, and the
percentage of felony probationers who successfully complete
probation.
c) Requires CPOs receiving funding to provide an annual
report to the AOC and the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluating the effectiveness of the
community corrections program.
d) Requires the AOC, in consultation with the CPO of each
county and the CDCR, to provide a quarterly statistical
report to the Department of Finance (DOF), as specified.
e) Requires the AOC to submit to the governor and the
Legislature a comprehensive annual report on the
implementation of this act, as specified.
13)Sunsets January 1, 2015.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to implement a
recommendation of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
create a model of best probation practices designed to
increase public safety and lower state prison costs.
According to the author, "Adult probation is a ticking time
bomb. 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 end
the cycle of offending, saving tax dollars, and making
communities safer."
The author's intent is to reduce the felony probation failure
rate by investing in probation and achieving three key goals:
Reduce crime through a community corrections strategy focused
SB 678
Page 6
on increasing supervision and management of felony offenders
on probation.
Reduce prison overcrowding, not by early release, but by
decreasing criminal activity of those on felony probation. The
bill makes offenders more accountable for their actions by
providing better supervision, monitoring and intermediate
sanctions.
Establish sustainable funding for enhanced adult felony
probation through performance incentive funding. As felony
probation supervision and management improves, measured by
fewer crimes and reduced revocation, communities experience
less crime and the state saves more money. Under performance
incentive funding, a significant portion of these state
savings are shared with probation for further adult probation
services.
2)LAO Model Program Proposal . Maximizing fiscal incentives has
long been a staple of LAO recommendations. As the LAO notes in
its May 2009 report, "Achieving Better Outcomes for Adult
Probation," "Probation departments clearly have an interest in
the success of adult probationers because of their
responsibility to ensure public safety in the community.
However, the current funding structure for adult probation 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 or sent
to state prison. Although we are advised that probation
officers frequently recommend retention, they sometimes
recommend state prison for those offenders who commit repeated
violations.
"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
SB 678
Page 7
successfully supervised at the local level, if more resources
were available for this purpose, are instead sent to state
prison at an even greater cost to taxpayers-about $49,000 per
year-plus additional parole costs."
The LAO report concludes that its recommended model program,
proposed in SB 678, "would provide financial incentives for
county probation departments to (1) implement the best
practices identified by experts as critical for reducing
recidivism rates and (2) reduce their revocations to state
prison. This, in turn, would result in better public safety
outcomes for local communities. At the same time, our proposal
would help reduce state prison and parole expenditures, which
have increased significantly over the past 20 years and takes
up a greater portion of the state budget. In addition, by
reducing the number of probationers sent to prison, our
proposal could help alleviate the significant overcrowding in
the prison system. This could be particularly important given
the issuance of a tentative ruling on February 9, 2009, by a
federal three-judge panel that the state must reduce the
state's inmate population by tens of thousands of inmates."
3)Proponents include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association, the California State Association of Counties,
L.A. County, the California State Sheriffs' Association, the
California Peace Officers Association, and the the Chief
Probation Officers of California.
4)Amendments . The author has technical amendments to add a
county supervisor or a county chief administrative officer, as
well as a victims' advocate to each local Community
Corrections Partnership advisory group.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081