BILL ANALYSIS
SB 678
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 678 (Leno)
As Amended August 31, 2009
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :33-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Arambula, Hagman, |Ayes:|De Leon, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Ammiano, Furutani, | |Coto, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Gilmore, Hill, Ma | |Hall, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
| | | |Hill |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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; and,
d) Providing sustainable funding for improved,
evidence-based probation supervision practices and
SB 678
Page 2
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.
1)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; and,
SB 678
Page 3
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
by scientific research to reduce recidivism among
individuals under probation, parole, or post-release
supervision.
2)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.
3)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 as follows.
a) The community corrections program shall be developed and
implemented by probation and advised by a local Community
Corrections Partnership (CCP).
b) The local CCP 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) A county supervisor or the chief administrative
officer for the county;
iii) The district attorney;
iv) The public defender;
SB 678
Page 4
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;
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; and,
xiii) An individual who represents the interests of
victims.
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;
SB 678
Page 5
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; and,
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
Office of the Courts (AOC) to have this restriction waived,
and the AOC 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; and,
e) Each probation department receiving funds under this
chapter shall maintain a complete and accurate accounting
of all funds received pursuant to this chapter.
4)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.
5)Asks the AOC, in consultation with the Chief Probation
Officers of California (CPOC), 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; and,
SB 678
Page 6
d) The percentage of persons on felony probation who
successfully complete the period of probation.
6)States that each CPO receiving funding shall provide an annual
written report to the AOC and the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluating the effectiveness of the
community corrections program.
7)Necessitates the AOC, 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:
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.
8)Commences no later than 18 months following the initial
receipt of funding pursuant to this act and annually
thereafter, the AOC, 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;
SB 678
Page 7
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
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.
9) Asks the DOF Director, in consultation with CDCR, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), CPOC, and AOC, 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.
10)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.
11)Orders at the conclusion of each calendar year following the
enactment of this section, the DOF Director, in consultation
with CDCR, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC, to calculate the following for
that calendar year:
a) The cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and
SB 678
Page 8
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;
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 AOC, 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; and,
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.
12)Mandates after the conclusion of each calendar year, the DOF
SB 678
Page 9
Director, in consultation with CDCR, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC,
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; and,
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.
13)Requires, annually, the DOF Director, in consultation with
CDCR, JLBC, COPC, and AOC, 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; and,
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.
14)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.
15)Provides that on an annual basis, the DOF, in consultation
with CDCR, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC, 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.
SB 678
Page 10
16)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.
17)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
recently completed calendar year.
18)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 AOC, by a date designated by the
AOC, whether the CPO chooses to receive the high performance
grant or probation failure reduction payment.
19)Announces that the grants provided for in this section shall
be administered by the AOC. The AOC 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.
20)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, JLBC, and AOC, 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.
21)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.
22)Estimates of the total probation failure reduction incentive
payments and high performance grants to be provided to
SB 678
Page 11
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
CDCR, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC. This adjustment shall occur as
part of standard budget revision processes completed by the
DOF in April and May of each year.
23)Establishes a state CCPIF. 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 AOC and the share calculated for each
county probation department shall be transferred to its CCPIF.
The Legislature may allocate up to 3% of the funds annually
deposited into the state CCPIF for use by AOC for the costs of
administering this program.
24)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.
25)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.
26)Contains an urgency clause, allowing this bill to take effect
immediately upon enactment.
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.
2)Provides that if a person is convicted of a felony and is
SB 678
Page 12
eligible for probation, before judgment is pronounced, the
court shall immediately refer the matter to a probation
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.
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.
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.
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
SB 678
Page 13
community.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Major annual General Fund (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 bill adopted by the Budget Conference
Committee has been scored by the 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 AOC, which would administer
the grant program in this bill, for administrative purposes.
Proponents of this bill 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
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
bill is absorbable.
COMMENTS : 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
SB 678
Page 14
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
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
SB 678
Page 15
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."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0002721