BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
0
3
AB 2031 (Fuentes) 1
As Amended March 20, 2012
Hearing date: June 26, 2012
Penal Code
AA:dl
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:
LOCAL AND STATE BOARD COMPOSITION
HISTORY
Source: State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Prior Legislation: AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats.
2011
SB 92 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) - Ch.
36, Stats. 2011
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats.
2011
Support: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association; L.A. County Probation
Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685; American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; California
Correctional Peace Officers Association; Peace Officers Research
Association of California; California
Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
Opposition:California State Association of Counties; Urban
Counties Caucus; Regional Council of Rural Counties;
Chief Probation Officers of California; California
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageB
State Sheriffs' Association; California Mental Health
Directors Association; California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice; California Probation, Parole and
Correctional Association; California Public Defenders
Association; Solano County Board of Supervisors;
California District Attorneys Association; County
Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of
California
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS BE ADDED TO THE BOARD
OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, LOCAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIPS ("CCPs"), AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES OF CCPs?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add law enforcement rank-and-file
members to the Board of State and Community Corrections, local
Community Corrections Partnerships ("CCPs"), and the Executive
Committees of the CCPs, as specified.
Local Community Corrections Partnerships
Current law authorizes each county to establish in each county
treasury a Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund
(CCPIF), to receive all amounts allocated to that county for
purposes relating to California Community Corrections
Performance Incentives, more commonly known at the SB 678
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageC
program. (Penal Code � 1230.)
Current law requires that the community corrections program be
developed and implemented by probation and advised by a local
Community Corrections Partnership ("CCP") chaired by the chief
probation officer and comprised of the following membership:
The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer
for the county or a designee of the board of supervisors.
The district attorney.
The public defender.
The sheriff.
A chief of police.
The head of the county department of social services.
The head of the county department of mental health.
The head of the county department of employment.
The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
programs.
The head of the county office of education.
A representative from a community-based organization
with experience in successfully providing rehabilitative
services to persons who have been convicted of a criminal
offense.
An individual who represents the interests of victims.
(Penal Code � 1230(b)(2).)
This bill would add the following members to the local CCPs:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff, to be appointed by the
local labor organization.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer, to be appointed by the local labor organization.
Current law requires each local CCP to "recommend a local plan
to the county board of supervisors for the implementation of the
2011 public safety realignment." (Penal Code � 1230.1) Current
law requires that the plan be voted on by an executive committee
of each
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageD
county's Community Corrections Partnership consisting of the
chief probation officer of the county as chair, a chief of
police, the sheriff, the District Attorney, the Public Defender,
the presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee, and one department representative, as specified.
(Penal Code � 1230.1(b).)
This bill would require that the executive committee of each
county's CCP include a rank-and-file deputy sheriff and a
rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation officer.
Board of State and Community Corrections
Current law provides for the "Corrections Standards Authority,"
("CSA") an entity within the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), as specified. (Penal
Code � 6024.)
Current law establishes, commencing July 1, 2012, the "Board of
State and Community Corrections," ("BSCC") as the successor
entity to CSA, an entity independent of CDCR, as specified.
(Penal Code � 6024.) Current law provides the following mission
for the BSCC:
The mission of the board shall include providing
statewide leadership, coordination, and technical
assistance to promote effective state and local
efforts and partnerships in California's adult and
juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing
gang problems. This mission shall reflect the
principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional
practices, including, but not limited
to prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision,
and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment
strategy that fits each county and is consistent with
the integrated statewide goal of improved public
safety through cost-effective, promising, and
evidence-based strategies for managing criminal
justice populations. (Penal Code � 6024(b).)
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageE
Current law enumerates specified duties for the BSCC, including
establishing minimum standards for local correctional facilities
(Penal Code � 6030), inspecting local detention facilities
biennially (Penal Code �� 6031 and 6031.1), conducting biennial
inspections of local juvenile facilities, as specified (Welfare
and Institutions Code ("WIC") � 209), and engaging in related
matters pertaining to standards and conditions in local
facilities where minors are detained, as specified. (See WIC ��
207.1, 210, and 210.2.) In addition to its ongoing duties,
CSA/BSCC is statutorily tasked with administering certain
programs, such as the AB 900 Local Jail Construction Financing
Program, the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, and the
Youthful Offender Block Grant. Current law also enumerates
additional duties for the BSCC broadly relating to criminal
justice policy, as specified. (Penal Code � 6027)
Current law provides that the BSCC shall be composed of 12
members, as follows:
(1) The Secretary of CDCR, serving as chair.
(2) The Director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations for
CDCR.
(3) A county sheriff in charge of a local detention facility
which has a Corrections Standards Authority rated capacity of
200 or less inmates, appointed by the Governor, subject to
Senate confirmation.
(4) A county sheriff in charge of a local detention facility
which has a Corrections Standards Authority rated capacity of
over 200 inmates, appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation.
(5) A county supervisor or county administrative officer. This
member shall be appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation.
(6) A chief probation officer from a county with a population
over 200,000, appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation.
(7) A chief probation officer from a county with a population
under 200,000, appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation.
(8) A judge appointed by the Judicial Council of California.
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageF
(9) A chief of police, appointed by the Governor, subject to
Senate confirmation.
(10) A community provider of rehabilitative treatment or
services for adult offenders, appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly.
(11) A community provider or advocate with expertise in
effective programs, policies, and treatment of at-risk youth and
juvenile offenders, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.
(12) A public member, appointed by the Governor, subject to
Senate confirmation. (Penal Code � 6025.)
This bill would add four additional members to BSCC, as follows:
Four rank-and-file representatives, to be appointed by
the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation, including
all of the following:
1) One juvenile probation officer or a deputy juvenile
probation officer.
2) One adult probation officer or a deputy adult
probation officer.
3) One deputy sheriff who is a sergeant or lower rank.
4) One state parole officer or parole agent.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageG
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageH
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Potential Amendments
Recent discussions between the author, proponents and Committee
staff have focused on narrowing and balancing the additions this
bill would make to the Board of State and Community Corrections
("BSCC") and the local Community Corrections Partnerships
("CCPs). Specifically, conversations have centered on the
following:
For the BSCC, add the following four members, all to be
appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation:
A second public member;
One probation officer or a deputy juvenile probation
officer.
One deputy sheriff who is a sergeant or lower rank.
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageI
One social worker with experience serving at risk youth,
adult criminal offenders, or persons with alcohol or
substance abuse problems.
For local CCPs, add the following four members:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff, to be appointed by the
local labor organization.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer, to be appointed by the local labor organization.
A rank-and-file social worker employed by the county
department of social services.
A counselor employed by a county alcohol and substance
abuse program.
Discussions concerning this bill's proposed changes to the
Executive Committees of each county's Community Corrections
Partnership have been ongoing. Proponents of adding rank and
file representatives on the Executive Committees argue in part
that, "the key funding decisions are made in the executive
committees. Rank and file participation is essential to
optimize the funding decisions and to ensure that rehabilitation
and re-entry services are fully funded. Proper funding
decisions will ensure the on-going success of 'Realignment.' .
. . The Governor's stated intent of Realignment, and the
Legislature's intent when enacting AB 109 and other statutes
related to Realignment, was to fund re-entry and rehabilitation,
and NOT to replace state prison beds with county jail beds. The
. . . breakdown of county funding of realignment dollars clearly
demonstrates that in too many instances the intent of
Realignment has not been honored. As a result, the inclusion
of rank and file law enforcement in the executive committee of
the CCPs is critical to insure proper funding priorities."
Opponents of this proposal, such as the Chief Probation Officers
of California, argue that the existing "process has been tenuous
and cumbersome in many instances as local agencies work through
the many challenges associated with realignment implementation.
. . . Representatives from labor can participate in the CCP
advisory process and during the subcommittee planning process .
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageJ
. . . However, giving new representatives a vote on the
executive committee of the CCP will shift the coordination and
disrupt the dynamic built among the existing members who have
been working diligently to work through issues of implementing
realignment."
2. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
AB 2231 would add a rank-and-file probation officer
and a rank-and-file deputy sheriff to the Executive
Committees of the Community Corrections Partnership
(CCP) and to the Board of State and Community
Corrections.
Existing law authorizes each county to establish a
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund to
receive state moneys to implement a community
corrections program. The community corrections program
must be advised by a local CCP, consisting of
specified members, including, but not limited to, the
sheriff and the heads of various county social
services programs. The CCP must also recommend a local
plan to the county board of supervisors for the
implementation of public safety realignment.
Further, existing law establishes the Board of State
and Community Corrections to provide statewide
leadership, coordination, and technical assistance to
promote effective state and local efforts and
partnerships in California's adult and juvenile
criminal justice system. The board is comprised of
specified members, including, but not limited to,
county sheriffs and probation officers.
Under realignment, rank-and-file probation officers
and deputy sheriffs have been excluded from the
Executive Committees of the CCPs, and the statewide
executive committee. Both of these committees are
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageK
charged with implementation of realignment.
3. What This Bill Would Do; Support and Opposition Arguments
As explained above, this bill would add rank and file law
enforcement representatives to three statutorily-created
entities relating to criminal justice policy, as follows:
The Board of State and Community Corrections:
Four rank-and-file representatives, to be appointed by the
Governor and subject to Senate confirmation, including all of
the following:
One juvenile probation officer or a deputy juvenile
probation officer.
One adult probation officer or a deputy adult probation
officer.
One deputy sheriff who is a sergeant or lower rank.
One state parole officer or parole agent.
Each County's Community Corrections Partnership:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff, to be appointed by the
local labor organization.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer, to be appointed by the local labor organization.
The Executive Committee of each County's Community Corrections
Partnership:
A rank-and-file deputy sheriff.
A rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation
officer.
Several supporters of this bill submit:
Two authoritative structures were created to implement
realignment - the BSCC at the state level and the
Executive Committee of the CCP at the county level.
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageL
However, there is NO rank-and-file representation on
either body. Furthermore, the CSA, which the BSCC is
replacing, has rank-and-file membership.
Rank-and-file representation on the Board and
committees charged with implementation of realignment
is vital to its success. Rank-and-file probation
officers and deputy sheriffs will add an important
perspective and raise vital operational issues, which
will ultimately impact the overall success of public
safety realignment.<1>
CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus, which are among the
opponents of this bill, state in part:
In our view, the work to ensure successful realignment
of correctional responsibilities has just begun.
Given the breadth and magnitude of this shift, we feel
it is simply too soon to begin making changes to the
underlying statutory construct that supports the
realignment planning and implementation process. We
also fear that if the Legislature sees fit to expand
the composition of the CCP, its executive committee,
or the BSCC, it would be merely the first in a line of
changes that would result, regrettably, in making
these bodies too large and unwieldy. As it stands
now, the composition of these bodies - particularly
the CCP executive committee - has been controversial
and delicate. In the context of realignment, we will
all benefit from having more experiential and
programmatic data about how things are actually
working at the local level before making hasty and, in
our view, unjustified changes.<2>
4. Board of State and Community Corrections
---------------------------
<1> Letters from the State Coalition of Probation
Organizations and several other proponents, on file with the
Committee.
<2> Letter from CSAC and Urban Counties Caucus, on file with
the Committee.
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageM
As explained above, the BSCC was created last year as part of
the 2011 Public Safety Realignment, and becomes operative July
1st of this year. The BSCC replaces the Corrections Standards
Authority which, when it was created in 2005, included four rank
and file appointments consistent with its assimilation of the
functions previously performed by the Commission on Correctional
Peace Officer Standards and Training ("C-POST"), which had 3
rank and file members. SB 92 from last year removed the C-POST
functions from the new BSCC. The predecessor to CSA, the Board
of Corrections, had two local rank and file representatives on
its 15-member board.
As currently structured, the BSCC 12-member board reflects the
following composition:
Law Enforcement: 7 members = 58%
Community Providers: 2 members = 17%
County Boards: 1 member = 8%
Judicial: 1 member = 8%
Public: 1 member = 8%
Under this bill, the BSCC would increase to 16 members, with the
following stakeholder composition:
Law Enforcement: 11 members = 69%
Community Providers: 2 members = 13%
County Boards: 1 member = 6%
Judicial: 1 member = 6%
Public: 1 member = 6%
With respect to state/local composition, the current BSCC
composition with 12 members is:
State: 2 members = 17%
Local: 8 members = 66%
Other (judge & public members): 2 members = 17%
Under this bill, the BSCC would increase to 16 members, with the
following state/local composition:
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageN
State: 3 members = 19%
Local: 11 members = 69%
Other (judge & public members): 2 members = 12%
5. Local Community Corrections Partnerships
Community Corrections Partnerships ("CCPs") were enacted in 2009
as part of SB 678 (Leno). As explained by the Community
Corrections Program in the Administrative Office of the Courts:
SB 678 created a state fund-the State Corrections
Performance Incentives Fund (SCPIF)-and authorized the
state to allocate money each year from the SCPIF to a
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund
(CCPIF) established in each county. Each county must
establish a local community corrections program
directed by the county's chief probation officer and
based on evidence-based practices. These local
programs then track the success of their
evidence-based programs and report the outcomes to the
AOC.
If the local programs succeed in reducing the number
of felony probationers sent to prison, the state saves
the cost of incarcerating those offenders. The state
will then share a portion of these savings with the
jurisdictions that generated the savings. Using a
baseline average probation failure rate from the years
2006 through 2008 for comparison, the California
Department of Finance calculates the change in the
annual failure rate for each county to determine which
counties are eligible to receive a portion of the
state savings.
Preliminary results for this incentive-based program
are very encouraging. In 2010, the first year that the
local community corrections programs began using
evidence-based practices, 6,182 fewer adult felony
probationers were sent to state prison, compared to
the baseline years of 2006 through 2008. This
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageO
represents a 23 percent reduction in the rate of
probation failure, for a savings to the state of $179
million.<3>
Pursuant to SB 678, local CCPs are comprised of the following
members:
1) The Chief Probation Officer (chair).
2) The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
3) A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer
for the county or a designee of the board of supervisors.
4) The district attorney.
5) The public defender.
6) The sheriff.
7) A chief of police.
8) The head of the county department of social services.
9) The head of the county department of mental health.
10) The head of the county department of employment.
11) The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
programs.
12) The head of the county office of education.
13) A representative from a community-based
organization with experience in successfully providing
rehabilitative services to persons who have been convicted
of a criminal offense.
14) An individual who represents the interests of
victims.
The current CCP composition reflects the following broad
categories of stakeholders:
(More)
---------------------------
<3> http://www.courts.ca.gov/15584.htm.
Law enforcement: 4 members = 29%
Social services: 6 members = 43%
Court: 1 member = 7 %
County Board: 1 member = 7 %
Victim representative: 1 member = 7 %
Public defender: 1 member = 7 %
Under this bill, the local CCPs would increase to 16 members,
with the following stakeholder composition:
Law enforcement: 6 members = 38%
Social services: 6 members = 38%
Court: 1 member = 6 %
County Board: 1 member = 6 %
Victim representative: 1 member = 6 %
Public defender: 1 member = 6 %
6. Local Public Safety Realignment Plans - CCP Executive
Committee
The 2011 Public Safety Realignment<4> enacted Penal Code section
1230.1 to require that each CCP, described in Comment 4 above,
"recommend a local plan to the county board of supervisors for
the implementation of the 2011 public safety realignment."
(Penal Code � 1230.1(a).) "Consistent with local needs and
resources, the plan may include recommendations to maximize the
effective investment of criminal justice resources in
evidence-based correctional sanctions and programs, including,
but not limited to, day reporting centers, drug courts,
residential multiservice centers, mental health treatment
programs, electronic and GPS monitoring programs, victim
restitution programs, counseling programs, community service
programs, educational programs, and work training programs."
(Penal Code � 1230.1(d).)
The plan developed pursuant to this section must "be voted on by
an executive committee of each county's Community Corrections
---------------------------
<4> See AB 109 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 15, Stats. 2011 and
AB 117 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 39, Stats. 2011.
(More)
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageQ
Partnership consisting of the chief probation officer of the
county as chair, a chief of police, the sheriff, the District
Attorney, the Public Defender, the presiding judge of the
superior court, or his or her designee, and one department
representative listed in either subparagraph (G), (H), or (J) of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1230, as designated
by the county board of supervisors for purposes related to the
development and presentation of the plan." (Penal Code �
1230.1(b).) This plan "shall be deemed accepted by the county
board of supervisors unless the board rejects the plan by a vote
of four-fifths of the board, in which case the plan goes back to
the Community Corrections Partnership for further
consideration." (Penal Code � 1230.1(c).)
As currently structured, stakeholder representation on the
7-member executive committee authorized to vote on each county's
public safety realignment plan is as follows:
Law enforcement: 4 members = 57%
Public Defender: 1 member = 14%
Social services: 1 member = 14%
Court: 1 member = 14%
Under this bill, this executive committee would increase to 9
members, with the following stakeholder composition:
Law enforcement: 6 members = 67%
Public Defender: 1 member = 11%
Social services: 1 member = 11%
Court: 1 member = 11%
***************
AB 2031 (Fuentes)
PageR