BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2060
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 2060 (V. Manuel Pérez) - As Amended: April 21, 2014
SUBJECT : Postrelease Community Supervision Population Workforce
Training Grant Program
SUMMARY : Establishes the Supervised Population Workforce Training
Grant Program (Program) to be administered by the California Workforce
Investment Board (CWIB). For the purposes of establishing and
implementing the Program, this bill :
1)Requires that the Program be competitive; open to all counties, as
specified; and funded, upon appropriation from the Legislature using
money from the Recidivism Reduction Fund.
2)Requires CWIB to administer the Program as follows:
a) Develop criteria for the selection of grant recipients through
a public process.
b) Design the grant program application to ensure that there is:
i) Fairness and competitiveness for smaller counties;
ii) Fair and equitable geographic distribution of grant funds;
and,
iii) Greater consideration given to a county that has
demonstrated that they have a collaborative working
relationship with one or more local workforce investment boards
or that the county is currently administering a workforce
training program for the supervised population.
3)Provides that each county is eligible to apply for the grant program
funds but that preference is given to counties with demonstrated
matching funding. The bill allows matching funds to come from
governmental or nongovernmental sources, including, but not limited
to, local workforce investment boards, local governments, or private
foundation funds.
4)Specifies that eligible uses of grant funds include, but are not
limited to, vocational training, stipends for trainees, and
AB 2060
Page 2
apprenticeship opportunities for the supervised population.
5)Requires grant recipients to report to CWIB regarding their use of
the funds and workforce training program outcomes upon completion of
the grant period.
6)Requires the CWIB to submit an evaluation of the Program by January
1, 2017, which includes information submitted by the grant
recipients and the CWIB's analysis of overall program outcomes, , as
specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the CWIB, comprised of members appointed by the Governor
and the appropriate presiding officer(s) of each house of the
Legislature, and specifies that the executive director of the CWIB
report to the Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency. The CWIB is responsible for assisting the state
in meeting the requirements of the federal Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (WIA), as well as assisting the Governor in the development,
oversight, and continuous improvement of California's workforce
investment system.
2)Creates in the State Treasury the Recidivism Reduction Fund for
moneys to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for
activities designed to reduce the state's prison population,
including, but not limited to, reducing recidivism.
3)Allows funds available in the Recidivism Reduction Fund to be
transferred to the State Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Fund.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Purpose : According to the author, "With orders from the
U.S. Supreme Court to reduce its prison population, the state needs
smart, effective policies to help local jurisdictions achieve
realignment goals and reduce recidivism.
Workforce development for the re-entry population is a practical
strategy for improving access to a stable job. It helps improve
offender outcomes, reduce the likelihood of recidivism, and promote
community safety and stability."
AB 2060
Page 3
2)Framing the Policy Issue : This bill proposes the establishment of a
new program to support quality workforce training and job placement
services to men and women who are reentering communities from
incarceration. The need for this type of assistance has been
advocated by many constituencies, including, but not limited to
advocates for formerly incarcerated adults, criminal justice policy
researchers, law enforcement, and business and community leaders
In deliberating the merits of the measure, Members may wish to
consider the challenges formally incarcerated individuals face in
reentering society and the social and financial cost to society for
the state's high recidivism rate. The analysis includes information
on these issues including suggested amendments in Comment 8 and a
list of related legislation.
3)Court Actions related to Prison Overcrowding : For decades,
California's prison system has faced significant challenges in
meeting both its basic security and rehabilitation responsibilities.
Designed to house an inmate population of 80,000, the state prison
population has remained well above that mark. In 2006, the
California prison population hit its peak with over 170,000 men and
women being housed within the state prison system.
The resulting conditions were the subject of two federal class
actions. In the first case, Coleman v. Brown (filed 1990), the
District Court found that prisoners with serious mental illness did
not receive minimal, adequate care and after over a decade of
remediation the Special Master assigned reported that the system's
mental health care continued to seriously and negatively be impacted
by overcrowding. In the second case a decade later, Planta v. Brown
(filed 2001), the state conceded deficiencies in prison medical care
violated prisoners Eight Amendments rights and stimulated to
remedial injunction. When the state failed to comply with the
injunction, the plaintiffs in both cases moved to convene a
three-judge court in order command the state to reduce the prison
population. The cases were ultimately consolidated and, in August
2009, the federal three-judge panel found that prison overcrowding
was the primary reason that the state was unable to provide inmates
with constitutionally adequate health care. The court ordered that
the state reduce its inmate population to no more than 137.5% of the
design capacity in the prisons operated by the CDCR by June 2013
[Planta/Coleman v. Brown]. Failing to meet this deadline, the court
stated would result in the early release of inmates.
AB 2060
Page 4
In response to this 2009 order, the state has taken a variety of
actions to reduce the size of its prison population. The most
significant of these changes was the 2009 parole reforms and the
2011 realignment of certain criminal justice responsibilities from
the state to the California counties. By the end of 2012-13,
realignment has been credited with reducing the prison population by
tens of thousands of inmates. The reductions were, however,
insufficient to meet the court mandate and, upon request, the June
2013 deadline was extended to April 18, 2014.
Understanding that additional actions would still be needed to meet
the court order regardless of the specific deadline, the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed legislation, which provided CDCR with
an additional $315 million in General Fund support in 2013-14.
These moneys were appropriated to be used for contracts to secure a
sufficient amount of inmate housing to meet the court order and to
take other actions to avoid the early release of inmates. The
measure also included provisions to provide program flexibility
should the court again extend the deadline for meeting the capacity
limit. Specifically, the bill allows up to $75 million that would
have otherwise been used to contract for bed space to be deposited
in the Recidivism Reduction Fund. Additional program savings are to
be allocated as follows: 50% reverted to the General Fund and 50%
transferred to the Recidivism Reduction Fund. [AB 105 (Steinberg),
Chapter 310, Statutes of 2013]
In January 2014, the Governor again requested the court extend the
deadline to reduce the prison population. The court subsequently
granted the extension. Specifically, the court ordered the state to
reduce its prison population to:
143% of design capacity by June 30, 2014.
141.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2015.
137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016.
The court also plans to appoint a Compliance Officer. If the
administration fails to meet any of the above benchmarks, the
Compliance Officer would be authorized to order the release of the
number of inmates required to meet the benchmark.
According to the Legislative Analysts' Office, the administration's
plan to comply with the court order consists of three primary
strategies: (1) contracting for bed space, (2) utilizing funding
from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to support initiatives intended
to reduce the prison population, and (3) implementing population
AB 2060
Page 5
reduction measures. More specifically, the Governor's budget
proposes a total of $481.6 million to house about 8,000 inmates in
in-state contract beds and above 9,000 inmates in out-of-state
contract beds in 2014-15. This represents an increase of $97.1
million and over 4,700 contract beds above the revised 2013-14
level.
1)Recidivism Reduction Fund : Moneys in the Recidivism Reduction Fund
are to be used to fund activities help lower the state's prison
population, including, but not limited to, reducing recidivism. It
is currently estimated that the Recidivism Reduction Fund has over
$81 million in the budget year. Senator Darrell Steinberg, Pro
Tempore of the Senate, is reported as saying he would be open to
substantially increasing the amount of moneys appropriated to the
Recidivism Reduction Fund based on the needs of the formerly
incarcerated and the significant consequences should the state fail
to meet its court mandated inmate reduction deadlines.
The Republican Members of the Assembly Select Committee on Justice
Reinvestment, have also recommended nearly doubling deposits into
the Recidivism Reduction Fund, from $81million to $157.7 million.
Of this amount, they recommend that $30 million be allocated to
county probation departments for first-time juvenile offenders.
AB 2060 seeks to use funds from the Recidivism Reduction Fund to
provide grants to county governments to assist in vocational
training, stipends for trainees, and apprenticeship opportunities.
The bill targets these services to supervised probation, mandatory
supervision, or postrelease community supervision.
2)State Strategy on Employment of Former Offenders : The federal
Workforce Investment Act requires the Governor, through CWIB, to
submit a State Strategic Workforce Development Plan (State Plan) to
the U.S. Department of Labor. This plan outlines a five-year
strategy for the investment of federal workforce training and
employment services funds. With respect to services to former
offenders, CWIB states the following:
"The State Board has leveraged the [California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)] expertise to help Local
Boards obtain additional funding from "realignment" funds
allocated to counties. A workshop was conducted by the California
Workforce Association, which included CDCR and Local Board staff
sharing knowledge about realignment and funding so that Local
Boards might be in a better position to engage their counties in
AB 2060
Page 6
seeking funding to serve this new "realigned" population.
The State Board will continue to work closely with CDCR and LWIBs
to encourage and develop innovative services for the ex-offender
population. Policy Link and the National Employment Law Project
(NELP), the State Board is helping convene LWIBs, to ensure
formally incarcerated individuals have access to quality
employment services. The State Board also worked with
theEmployment Development Department and NELP to develop a
directive to ensure that LWIBs comply with nondiscrimination
obligations when serving individuals with criminal records.
http://edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_Training/pubs/wsd12-9.pdf ."
Consistent with Adults Goal Objective 1, Action 2; the State
Board will work with the LWIBs to identify in their Local Plan
strategies they will utilize to identify and remove barriers
hampering their investment of WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker
funds in [career technical education] programs to the ex-offender
population in their areas.
3)Examples of Training Activities : In preparation for this analysis,
the Committee asked the California Workforce Association to survey
its membership about current and previous activities related to
reentry programs that targeted the formally incarcerated. Of the 49
LWIBs in California, 11 boards were able to respond under the tight
timeframes including: Golden Sierra; Inyo and Mono Consortium; Kern
County; Marin County; Merced County; Monterey County; San
Bernardino County; San Diego County; Sacramento County; Sonoma
County; Santa Cruz County; and the Verdugo Consortium. These 11
LWIBs reported serving 1,782 individuals who were reentering
communities following incarceration in the prior year. The
California Workforce Association believes this figure is much higher
as the other 38 WIBs also serve the re-entry population. Below is a
summary of the answers provided.
a) What type of re-entry programs do you have and how many people
do they serve?
Many local workforce investment boards receive funding from their
local probation departments. Services in these programs
generally include a reentry navigator/case manager who acts as an
employment counselor and also ensures that appropriate wrap
around services are offered to the job seekers.
The goal of these programs is to help the individual find
AB 2060
Page 7
full-time employment. Large portions of the program focus on job
readiness training, on-the-job training, work experience and
class room/vocational training. Support services are also a key
component to the re-entry programs. Services such as GED
preparation and testing, transportation vouchers, food vouchers,
record expungement, counseling, housing assistance, driver
license and social security compliance, etc.
Even in local workforce areas where direct funding is not
received, workforce boards use their own funds to partner with
the probation and juvenile justice system to offer job readiness
workshops including resume preparation, interview skills, labor
market opportunities, filling out applications, and dress for
success.
b) What is the total funding for those programs and where are the
funds from?
Program funding varies locally, but a majority of LWIBs reported
receiving AB 109 funds from their probation department. Other
funding sources include, CDCR, local juvenile departments, and
non-profits such as Friends Outside and Behavioral Interventions,
Inc. Individual program budgets range from $130,000 to 400,000
annually.
c) What is the cost per individual in these programs? The
average cost reported is roughly $6,000 per individual.
d) Do you provide any stipends or wages from your program?
The programs generally offer to pay wages or part of the wages
through work experience or on-the-job training programs.
Additionally, programs serving youth use stipends to support
program completion.
e) Do women or men have an easier time finding employment?
The majority of programs report that most of their participants
are male. Several programs stated that males seem to have an
easier time placing due to the partnerships they have with
organizations offering skilled trade or labor jobs. A few areas
report that women are more apt to request and receive training
then men and are more likely to have a work history before
entering incarceration.
AB 2060
Page 8
In addition to answering these questions, the California Workforce
Association also commented on the importance of wrap around services
and the importance to address the basic needs on the individuals
reentering communities, such as shelter, food, and having a healthy
support network. Without their core survival needs being within
reach, it is much more difficult finding employment and may be
tempted to resume their prior lifestyle.
4)WIA and the California Workforce Investment Board : Enacted in 1998,
WIA provides states with federal funding for job training and
employment investment activities and programs, including work
incentive and employment training outreach programs. Distribution
of the funds is based on a set formula which includes specified
economic and demographic data and flows to the state through three
primary programs: Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Workers.
California's WIA allocation from the U.S. Department of Labor has
declined over the years from a high of $630 million in 2000-01 to
$411 million in 2012-13. Federal law dictates that 85% of Adult
and Youth formula funds, and 60% of Dislocated Worker formula funds,
are distributed to local WIBs (LWIBs). Funding for the state's
activities is derived from the 15% WIA discretionary funds. In
2012-13 LWIBs received $348 million, while the state received about
$20 million in discretionary moneys.
California's WIA dollars are overseen by the 56-member CWIB, of
which 61% of the members represent the private sector, as required
by federal law. The CWIB has a staff of 17 authorized positions and
is currently led by Executive Director Tim Rainey. In 2008, CWIB
established the GCJC to address the workforce development needs of
the emerging clean and green economy.
Among its primary duties, the CWIB provides guidance to local LWIBs
and is responsible for the development of a unified, strategic plan
to coordinate various education, training, and employment programs
that result in an integrated workforce development system that
supports economic development. The plan is required to be updated
at least every 5 years in order to address the state's changing
economic, demographic, and workplace needs. The most recent plan
was submitted to the federal Department of Labor in April 2013 and
approved after consultation and modest revisions in June 2013.
California's Strategic Workforce Development Plan 2013-2017 -
"Shared Strategy for a Shared Prosperity," prioritizes regional
coordination among key partners, sector-based employment strategies,
skill attainment through earn and learn and other effective training
AB 2060
Page 9
models (including, but not limited to apprenticeship), and
development of career pathways.
Based on the framework of the state plan, in July 2013, the LWIBs
submitted local workforce investment plans for the CWIB's review.
Key among the policy enhancements in the current state and local
plans are strengthened performance indicators to allow for ongoing
monitoring of the plan's success. There are 49 LWIBs that plan for
and oversee the workforce investment system at the local level.
Each LWIB also has one or more One-Stop Centers, which provide
access to career information, counseling, and funding for education,
training and supportive services.
5)Amendments : Committee staff has been working the author on
technical and policy amendments, which will be presented during the
hearing. The proposed amendments:
a) Add legislative intent that outlines the challenges faced by
the state in meeting the court order inmate population reductions
targets and the challenges faced by individuals in reentering
communities after being incarcerated;
b) Add a statement of purpose to the Program and identify
baseline and metrics for selecting proposals. These will be
consistent with the expected outcomes already identified in the
bill;
c) Divide the Program grants into two distinct training streams:
one stream for post-secondary training that may lead to
certifications, and placement on a middle-skill career ladder and
a second stream for individuals that are starting with low
educational attainment and need help with basic academic skills;
d) Strengthen the relationships with the LWIBs;
e) Provide additional direction to the CWIB on how fairness and
equity should be implemented in the program; and
f) Make technical amendments.
6)Related Legislation : Legislation related to this measure includes
the following:
a) AB 8 (V. Manuel Pérez) Renewable Energy Workforce Readiness
Initiative: This bill would have required the California
AB 2060
Page 10
Workforce Investment Board, in consultation with the Green Collar
Jobs Council, to establish a Renewable Energy Workforce Readiness
Initiative, as specified. As part of these activities, the
California Workforce Investment Board would have provided
guidance to local workforce investment boards on how to establish
comprehensive green collar job assessment, training, and
placement programs that reflect the local and regional economies.
Status: Vetoed by the Governor, 2011.
b) AB 285 (Brown) Scope of Practice for the California Workforce
Investment Board: This bill would have required the California
Workforce Investment Board to make recommendations and provide
technical assistance on entrepreneurial training opportunities
that could be made available through local workforce investment
boards. The bill would have also deleted certain required duties
of the California Workforce Investment Board and made changes to
the definition of microenterprise. Status: Vetoed by the
Governor, 2013.
c) AB 1019 (Ammiano) Prison Workforce Training: This bill
requires goals for career technical education to be set by the
Superintendent of Correctional Education, and establishes factors
that are required to be considered when establishing a career
technical education program, as specified.. Status: Signed by
the Governor, Chapter 789, Statutes of 2013.
d) AB 1797 (Rodriguez) Earn and Learn Job Training: This bill
require the State WIB, in consultation with specified agencies,
to identify opportunities for "earn and learn" job training
opportunities and develop the means to identify, assess, and
prepare a pool of qualified candidates seeking to enter those
training models. Status: AB 1797 is pending in the Assembly
Committee on Labor and Employment.
e) AB 2526 (Gonzalez) Community Corrections Program: This bill
would require a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank-and-file
police officer and a rank-and-file probation officer or a deputy
probation officer, to be appointed by a local labor organization,
to the membership of a Community Corrections Partnership. The
bill would require the vote of the rank-and-file deputy sheriff
or rank-and-file police officer and a rank-and-file probation
officer or deputy probation officer on the local plan. Status:
Pending in Senate Rules.
f) SB 105 (Steinberg) Recidivism Reduction Fund: This bill,
AB 2060
Page 11
among other things, created the Recidivism Reduction Fund in the
State Treasury to be available for appropriation by the
Legislature for activities aimed at reducing the state's prison
population, including, but not limited to, reducing recidivism.
Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 310, Statutes of 2013.
g) SB 118 (Lieu) Education and Workforce Investment Systems:
This bill required the California Workforce Investment Board to
incorporate specific principles into the state's strategic plan
to align the education and workforce investment systems of the
state to the needs of the 21st century economy and promotes a
well-educated and highly skilled workforce to meet the state's
future workforce needs. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter
562, Statutes of 2013.
7)Double Referral : The Assembly Committee on Rules referred this
measure to two policy committees for review. AB 2060 passed the
Assembly Committee on Public Safety (PS) on April 8, 2014 on a 7 to
0 vote. As noted above, the amendments discussed in the PS hearing
resulted in the more defined list of reporting requirements.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
PolicyLink (sponsor)
Communities United for Restoring Youth Justice (sponsor)
California Budget Project
California Hospital Association
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Manufacturing and Technology Association
California Workforce Association
Career Ladders Project for the California Community Colleges
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Youth Law
National Council of La Raza
State Building and Construction Trades of California
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Toni Symonds / J., E.D. & E. / (916) 319-2090
AB 2060
Page 12