BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1210
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1210 (Lieu) - As Amended: June 20, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes a construct for administering and
collecting restitution and revocation fines from persons
sentenced to county jail or mandatory supervision rather than
state prison, or persons released on post release community
supervision (PRCS) rather than on state parole pursuant to
correctional realignment. The construct is essentially parallel
to the existing mechanisms used by state prison and parole
authorities, though the state collection scheme is mandatory and
the proposed local collection scheme is permissive.
Specifically:
1)Current law requires an offender whose parole is revoked to
pay a parole revocation fine as set by the court. This bill
creates a revocation fine for an offender who violates PRCS or
mandatory supervision and is returned to county jail.
2)Current law provides that any portion of a restitution order
unsatisfied after a defendant is no longer on probation or
parole is enforceable as a civil judgment. This bill provides
for similar enforcement when an offender is no longer on PRCS
or mandatory supervision.
3)Current law requires the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to collect unpaid restitution orders or
fines from prison inmates by deducting 20% to 50% of the
inmate wages and trust account deposits. This bill authorizes
local officials to so deduct.
4)Current law requires CDCR to assess 10% from of the amount
deducted from the inmate's wages or account to fund collection
SB 1210
Page 2
costs. This bill authorizes counties to assess a 10% fee to
cover collection costs.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)No state cost.
2)Unknown significant increase, in the millions of dollars, to
the state Restitution Fund to the extent local administration
and collection efforts are successful. Assuming local
administration and collection efforts are moderately
successful, Restitution Fund revenue should remain relatively
consistent with recent levels.
3)Unknown, potentially significant, nonreimbursable costs to
local governments - likely County Sheriff Offices - for
additional workload to create and administer collection
efforts. Several County Sheriff Offices have expressed
reservations regarding workload that may exceed the allowed
administrative deductions from inmate funds. While the bill
only authorizes such collection efforts, should county boards
task sheriffs' offices with these responsibilities, sheriffs
would presumably bear any costs that exceed administrative
deductions.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to replicate the state's
restitution administration and collection at the local level
to account for the shift in state prison and parole population
and administration to the local level following correctional
realignment.
According to the author, "Last year, AB 109 realigned public
safety services in California. As part of the Realignment
plan thousands of convicted felons are no longer being sent to
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR), instead they are being housed in local jails.
Unfortunately, the Realignment plan failed to give counties
the authority to collect restitution for victims from these
convicted felons.
"SB 1210 corrects this oversight by providing counties with
the authority to collect restitution from these offenders in
order to help the victims of their crimes receive the
SB 1210
Page 3
restitution they are rightfully due."
2)Support . Sponsored by the California District Attorneys
Association, the L.A. District Attorney, and the Crime Victims
Action Alliance, who state that this bill provides local
governments basically the same authority the state has to
collect restitution when offenders are incarcerated in county
jail instead of state prison, or on PRCS instead of parole.
3)Concerns have been expressed by several county sheriffs and
the State Sheriffs Association regarding potential cost
pressure. The Association has suggested an amendment requiring
the concurrence of the sheriff before a county board embarks
on collection efforts. Such an amendment seems appropriate and
consistent with the intent of the bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081