BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1633
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Sandy Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1633 (Ammiano) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
SUMMARY : Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC) to collect and analyze criminal sentencing data,
establish a database for that data, and issue recommendations
after collaborating with specified stakeholders and experts.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires BSCC to do all of the following:
a) Develop consistent date collection processes and perform
analysis, as specified, with regard to sentencing to ensure
that the state's sentencing structure is based on sound,
data-driven, and rational sentencing policy;
b) Establish a public database to serve as a clearinghouse
for all sentencing-related data that is compiled by it;
c) Issue recommended changes to the state's sentencing
structure;
d) Submit recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature; and
e) Publish a sentencing manual to provide guidance to
judges, prosecutors, the defense bar, and the public on how
sentencing works.
2)Requires the board to select and consult with the following
specified stakeholders and experts in order to fulfill its
duties:
a) A district attorney, selected after conferring with the
California District Attorneys Association;
b) A public defender, selected after conferring with the
California Public Defenders Association;
AB 1633
Page 2
c) A county sheriff, selected after conferring with the
California State Sheriffs' Association;
d) A chief probation officer, selected after conferring
with the California Probation Officers of California;
e) A chief of police, selected after conferring with the
California Police Chiefs Association;
f) A member of the Board of Parole Hearings;
g) The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, or
his or her designee, but which must be a justice of the
Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeal;
h) Two trial judges, selected after conferring with the
California Judges Association;
i) A representative from the Administrative Office of the
Courts;
j) Two professors of law, selected after conferring with
the Senate Committee on Rules;
aa) Two academics with experience in criminal justice
research, selected after conferring with the Speaker of the
Assembly;
bb) A member of the State Assembly, selected after
conferring with the Speaker of the Assembly;
cc) The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, or his or her designee;
dd) The Attorney General, or his or her designee, and
ee) The State Public Defender, or his or her designee.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the BSCC commencing July 1, 2012. (Pen. Code, �
6024, subd. (a).)
2)States that the mission of BSCC shall include providing
AB 1633
Page 3
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. (Pen. Code, � 6024, subd. (b).)
3)Requires the BSCC to collect and maintain available
information and data about state and community correctional
policies, practices, capacities, and needs, including, but not
limited to, prevention, intervention, suppression,
supervision, and incapacitation, as they relate to both adult
corrections, juvenile justice, and gang problems. (Pen. Code,
� 6027, subd. (a).)
4)Requires the BSCC to do the following:
a) Develop recommendations for the improvement of criminal
justice and delinquency and gang prevention activity
throughout the state;
b) Identify, promote, and provide technical assistance
relating to evidence-based programs, practices, and
promising and innovative projects consistent with the
mission of the BSCC;
c) Develop definitions of key terms, including, but not
limited to, "recidivism," "average daily population,"
"treatment program completion rates," and any other terms
deemed relevant in order to facilitate consistency in local
data collection, evaluation, and implementation of
evidence-based practices, promising evidence-based
practices, and evidence-based programs. In developing these
definitions, the board shall consult with specified
stakeholders and experts;
d) Receive and disburse federal funds, and perform all
necessary and appropriate services in the performance of
its duties as established by federal acts;
AB 1633
Page 4
e) Develop comprehensive, unified, and orderly procedures
to ensure that applications for grants are processed
fairly, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with the
mission of the BSCC;
f) Identify delinquency and gang intervention and
prevention grants that have the same or similar program
purpose, are allocated to the same entities, serve the same
target populations, and have the same desired outcomes for
the purpose of consolidating grant funds and programs and
moving toward a unified single delinquency intervention and
prevention grant application process in adherence with all
applicable federal guidelines and mandates;
g) Cooperate with and render technical assistance to the
Legislature, state agencies, units of general local
government, combinations of those units, or other public or
private agencies, organizations, or institutions in matters
relating to criminal justice and delinquency prevention;
h) Develop incentives for units of local government to
develop comprehensive regional partnerships whereby
adjacent jurisdictions pool grant funds in order to deliver
services to a broader target population and maximize the
impact of state funds at the local level;
i) Conduct evaluation studies of the programs and
activities assisted by the federal acts;
j) Identify and evaluate state, local, and federal gang and
youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention
programs and strategies, along with funding for those
efforts.
aa) Collect from each county the plan submitted pursuant to
2011 public safety realignment within two months of
adoption by the county boards of supervisors. Commencing
January 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, the board shall
collect and analyze available data regarding the
implementation of the local plans and other outcome-based
measures, as defined. By July 1, 2013, and annually
thereafter, the board shall provide to the Governor and the
Legislature a report on the implementation of the plans;
and
AB 1633
Page 5
bb) Commencing on and after July 1, 2012, the BSCC, in
consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts,
the California State Association of Counties, the
California State Sheriffs' Association, and the Chief
Probation Officers of California, shall support the
development and implementation of first phase baseline and
ongoing data collection instruments to reflect the local
impact of 2011 public safety realignment, specifically
related to dispositions for felony offenders and post
release community supervision. The BSCC shall make any data
collected pursuant to this paragraph available on the
board's Internet Web site. It is the intent of the
Legislature that the BSCC promote collaboration and the
reduction of duplication of data collection and reporting
efforts where possible. (Pen. Code, � 6027, subd. (b).)
5)Provides that the BSCC may do either of the following:
a) Collect, evaluate, publish, and disseminate statistics
and other information on the condition and progress of
criminal justice in the state; and
b) Perform other functions and duties as required by
federal acts, rules, regulations, or guidelines in acting
as the administrative office of the state planning agency
for distribution of federal grants. (Pen. Code, � 6027,
subd. (c).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "California's
correctional crisis is far from over. We seem to be content
with putting bandaids on the back end problems when more front
end solutions are needed. Sentencing reform has been called
for time and again but efforts continue to be stymied.
Experts on sentencing policy, and not just law enforcement
need to be involved in sentencing reform. The state currently
lacks a means to facilitate this discussion, and the Board of
State and Community Corrections appears to be charged with
looking at criminal justice best practices, and is the most
appropriate place to discuss this issue if we are ever to be
serious about criminal justice reform."
AB 1633
Page 6
2)History and Consequences of Sentencing Law in California :
Until 1976, California had an indeterminate sentencing system:
judges had almost complete discretion to impose sentences
within broadly defined ranges, and parole authorities had
almost complete discretion to release inmates any time before
the expiration of the imposed sentence. This system was
criticized for lacking uniformity, proportionality, and
transparency, and for unrealistically promoting rehabilitation
as a primary goal of sentencing. (See Hindsight and the
Failure of California's Uniform Determinative Sentencing Act,
by Emily de Ayora, Stanford Criminal Justice Center, Jan.
2006, p. 1 <
https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/266
901/doc/slspublic/EDe_Ayora_06.pdf>.)
In 1976, the California Legislature enacted the Determinate
Sentencing Act (DSA), explicitly describing the new law's
philosophy as rooted in 'punishment' rather than
rehabilitation. The DSA grouped crimes into categories, with
each category tied to a sentencing 'triad' containing a high,
middle, and low sentence. The law directed judges
presumptively to impose the middle sentence or, if justified
by aggravating and/or mitigating factors, the higher or lower
sentence. The DSA also abolished discretionary parole
release. (See generally Understanding California Sentencing,
by Kara Dansky, Former Executive Director, Stanford Criminal
Justice Center <
http://media.law.stanford.edu/publications/archive/pdf/Dansky%2
0Sentencing.pdf>.)
There is now growing agreement among practitioners,
policymakers, and academics that California's post-1976
sentencing structure has contributed to serious problems that
no one anticipated in 1976 - prison overcrowding, unsafe
conditions for officers and inmates, high recidivism,
expenditures, a lack of systematic data collection, and an
incoherent sentencing structure.
"It is sound policy to create an independent agency, drawing on
professional policy expertise as well as the perspectives of
representatives from various parts of state government, whose
mandate is to collect and analyze sentencing and corrections
data, to develop statewide sentencing and corrections
policies, and to distribute sentencing discretion
AB 1633
Page 7
appropriately and evenly throughout the criminal justice
system." (See Contemporary Sentencing Reform in California:
a Report to the Little Hoover Commission, by Kara Dansky,
Former Executive Director, Stanford Criminal Justice Center,
at p. 1,
http://sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2006/Sept2006/d
ocument02.pdf>.)
3)Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) Report on the BSCC :
"Chapter 36, Statutes of 2011 (SB 92, Committee on Budget and
Fiscal Review), established the BSCC, effective July 1, 2012.
From 2005 through 2012, BSCC was the Correction Standards
Authority, a division of CDCR. Prior to that it was the Board
of Corrections, an independent state department. The BSCC is
responsible for administering various criminal justice grant
programs and ensuring compliance with state and federal
standards in the operation of local correctional facilities.
It is also responsible for providing technical assistance to
local authorities and collecting data related to the outcomes
of criminal justice policies and practices." (LAO, The
2013-14 Budget: The Governor's Criminal Justice Proposals, p.
44 (Feb. 15, 2013).)
"In creating BSCC, the Legislature added two responsibilities to
the board's core mission: (1) assisting local entities to
adopt best practices to improve criminal justice outcomes and
(2) collecting and analyzing data related to criminal justice
outcomes in the state." (Id. at pp. 44-45.)
The LAO reports that "the BSCC has not yet played an active role
in facilitating the adoption of evidence-based programs.
Instead, the board plans to respond to requests for assistance
from local agencies as requests arise. However, we believe
more is required in order to fulfill the Legislature's intent
when giving BSCC its technical assistance mission, which was
to proactively encourage and facilitate the adoption of
evidence-based practices across the state." (Id. at pp.
45-46.)
The LAO also reports that "BSCC has not yet developed a
longer-term plan to fulfill its data collection mission.
Developing a longer-term data collection strategy could
promote better public safety by ensuring that policymakers
have useful information they need to make decisions about
programs, policies, and funding priorities. Importantly,
AB 1633
Page 8
however, BSCC's role in data collection should be focused, in
particular, on providing local accountability. To the extent
that useful information is available to local
stakeholders-corrections managers, county elected officials,
local media, and the public-local governments can be held
accountable for their outcomes and expenditures. Because
decisions about how to manage most corrections populations are
inherently local decisions, the focus of accountability should
be local. For this reason, the role of BSCC in the long term
should not principally be to collect data for the sake of
informing the state of what is happening locally. Instead,
the role of BSCC should be to facilitate local accountability,
such as by providing transparency and uniformity in how local
entities report outcomes." (Id. at p. 47.)
The LAO makes the following recommendations to help ensure
BSCC's progress in fulfilling its new mission:
a) Technical Assistance Plan: "We recommend that the
Legislature direct BSCC to submit, by January 1, 2014, a
technical assistance plan that includes (1) a description
of specific educational programs, training sessions,
outreach visits, and on-site technical assistance that BSCC
will provide to local governments, as well as a timeline
for when these services will be available; and (2) a
timeline for creating and maintaining an online
clearinghouse that would make literature related to
implementing evidence-based criminal justice programs
available to state and local practitioners;
b) Report on Near-Term Data Collection Strategy: "We
recommend that the Legislature approve the Governor's
proposal for additional staffing in BSCC. In particular,
we find the additional research staff proposed would help
ensure that BSCC has qualified staff to pursue its data
collection mission. We further recommend that BSCC report
at budget hearings on its near-term data collection plan,
including how the board plans to utilize its new research
unit and what specific changes it plans to make to its data
collection instruments; and
c) Longer-Term Data Working Group: "We recommend directing
BSCC to convene a working group to identify a data and
accountability system that is as comprehensive, uniform,
and accessible as is reasonable given limited state and
AB 1633
Page 9
local resources. This would include (1) identifying the
key outcomes and other measures that all counties should
collect, (2) clearly defining these measures to ensure that
all counties collect them uniformly, and (3) developing a
process for counties to report the data and for BSCC to
make the data available to the public. This should include
exploring the feasibility of developing a more
comprehensive statewide case management system, including
determining the overall costs, potential funding sources,
implementation challenges, and the potential fiscal and
programmatic benefits to counties. The working group
should include representatives from state and local
criminal justice agencies, the Legislature, the courts,
state agencies with information technology expertise, and
the research community. We also recommend the Legislature
adopt budget bill language directing the working group to
prepare a report detailing its findings by no later than
December 1, 2014." (Id. at p. 49.)
4)Argument in Support : The California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice state, "California is facing a serious crisis with its
prison system, overcrowding, and years of determinate
sentencing for minor and low level crimes. After the
three-judge panel's mandate to lower the prison population,
the legislature must consider a new and fresh approach towards
sentencing in hopes of reversing the trend.
"AB 1633 would be a step in the right direction towards
accountability and the possibility for a sentencing
commission. This is a long sought after goal by CACJ."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California State
Sheriffs' Association , "Given that California is still
adapting to one of the largest changes in the history of
criminal justice sentencing, now is not the time to undertake
another massive review of California's sentencing laws.
Moreover, based on the proposed composition of this sentencing
commission, we are concerned that any recommendations made by
a majority of the members would not be reflective of
protecting public safety. Indeed, this new commission would
be charged with many things, but apparently not with taking
into account the concerns of victims' rights, interests of
justice, the seriousness of certain crimes or offenses, or the
impacts on public safety. Finally, we must also express our
concerns regarding another in a long line of measures that
AB 1633
Page 10
task the BSCC with new duties, but without any additional
funding."
6)Related Legislation : AB 2521 (Hagman) would, on and after
July 1, 2015, require BSCC, in consultation with the
Administrative Office of the Courts, the California State
Association of Counties, the California State Sheriffs'
Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California,
to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates, as
defined, of all persons who have received sentences for
felonies punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, as
specified, or who have been placed on postrelease community
supervision. AB 2521 would require the data to include, as it
becomes available, recidivism rates for offenders one, 2, and
3 years after their release in the community, and require BSCC
to make this data available on the board's Internet Web site
on a quarterly basis. AB 2521 is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
7)Prior Legislation :
a) AB 1050 (Dickinson), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2013,
requires BSCC to develop definitions of key terms,
including, but not limited to, "recidivism," "average daily
population," "treatment program completion rates," and any
other terms deemed relevant in order to facilitate
consistency in local data collection, evaluation, and
implementation of evidence-based practices, promising
evidence-based practices, and evidence-based programs, in
consultation with the California State Association of
Counties, California Sheriffs' Association, Chief Probation
Officers of California, California District Attorneys
Association, and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
b) SB 92 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 36,
Statutes of 2011, starting July 1, 2012, eliminates the
Corrections Standards Authority, and assigns its former
duties to the newly-created 12-member BSCC and assigns
additional duties, as provided.
c) AB 1376 (Bass), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
established an independent, multi-jurisdictional body to
provide a forum for statewide policy development, research,
and planning concerning criminal sentencing law. AB 1376
died on the Senate Inactive File.
AB 1633
Page 11
d) AB 160 (Lieber), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have established the California Sentencing Commission
(CSC), with specified membership and terms, to devise
sentencing guidelines. AB 160 died on the Senate Inactive
File.
e) SB 110 (Romero), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have created a CSC to revise rules and penalties
imposed for specified crimes unless rejected by the
Legislature in statute. SB 110 died on the Assembly Floor.
f) ABx2 14 (Lieber), of the 2005-06 Second Extraordinary
Session on Prison Overcrowding, established the CSC, with
specified membership and terms, to devise sentencing
guidelines. ABx2 14 was held at the Assembly Desk and
never heard.
g) AB 2152 (Goldberg), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have established the CSC, with specified membership
and terms, to devise sentencing guidelines. AB 2152 was
substantially amended when it reached the Senate and was
subsequently vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Service Employees International Union Local 1000
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744