BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 678|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 678
Author: Leno (D) and Benoit (R), et al
Amended: 8/31/09
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 04/28/09
AYES: Leno, Benoit, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg,
Wright
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 05/11/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, DeSaulnier, Hancock,
Leno, Oropeza, Wolk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Walters, Wyland, Yee
SENATE FLOOR : 33-0, 5/18/09
AYES: Aanestad, Alquist, Ashburn, Benoit, Cogdill, Corbett,
Correa, Cox, Denham, DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Dutton,
Hancock, Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,
Lowenthal, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley,
Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Wiggins, Wolk,
Wright, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cedillo, Florez, Oropeza,
Romero, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Probation: performance-based funding for
felony probation
supervision
SOURCE : Chief Probation Officers of California
CONTINUED
SB 678
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill 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.
Assembly Amendments : (1) broadens those who are to
calculate the amount of money to be appropriated from the
state fund, (2) funds are no longer appropriated from the
General Fund, (3) makes numerous clarifying changes, and
(4) adds an urgency clause and coauthors.
ANALYSIS : 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
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
SB 678
Page
3
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 community.
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;
SB 678
Page
4
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
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.
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:
(1) Enhancing public safety through the
management and reduction of offender risk while
under felony probation supervision and upon
reentry from jail into the community;
SB 678
Page
5
(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; and,
(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 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
SB 678
Page
6
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: (1) the presiding judge of the superior
court, or his or her designee; (2) a county
supervisor or the chief administrative officer for
the county; (3) the district attorney; (4) the
public defender; (5) the sheriff; (6) a chief of
police; (7) the head of the county department of
social services; (8) the head of the county
department of mental health; (9) the head of the
county department of employment; (10) the head of
the county alcohol and substance abuse programs;
(11) the head of the county office of education;
(12) 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, (13)
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: (1)
implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and
needs assessments; (2) 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; (3) providing more intensive probation
supervision; (4) expanding the availability of
evidence-based rehabilitation programs including,
SB 678
Page
7
but not limited to, drug and alcohol treatment,
mental health treatment, anger management, cognitive
behavior programs, and job training and employment
services; and, (5) 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 five percent 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.
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 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;
SB 678
Page
8
C. Specification of supervision policies,
procedures, programs, and practices that were
eliminated; and,
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 AOC and the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) evaluating the
effectiveness of the community corrections program.
8. 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.
9. 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
SB 678
Page
9
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 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 (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.
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
SB 678
Page
10
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, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC, 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;
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, JLBC, CPOC, 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
SB 678
Page
11
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.
13.Mandates after the conclusion of each calendar year, the
DOF 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
percent 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 percent
above the statewide probation failure rate.
14.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 percent of the costs to the state
to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole a
SB 678
Page
12
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 percent 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, JLBC, CPOC, and AOC, shall
calculate five percent 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 percent below the statewide
average in the most 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 AOC, by a date designated by the AOC,
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
SB 678
Page
13
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.
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, 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.
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 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.
24.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 three percent of the funds annually deposited into
the state CCPIF for use by AOC for the costs of
SB 678
Page
14
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
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,
SB 678
Page
15
practices, programs, etc.
4.DOF indicates its administrative workload required by
this bill is absorbable.
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/10/09)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, Local 685
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Friends Committee on Legislation
Little Hoover Commission
Los Angeles Probation Officers Union
Riverside Sheriffs Association
San Diego County District Attorneys Office
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"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
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:
"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.
"This bill will reduce prison overcrowding, not by early
release but by decreasing the criminal activity of those
SB 678
Page
16
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.
"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 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."
RJG:nl 9/10/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****