BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2373
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 2373 (R. Hernández) - As Amended: March 24, 2014
SUBJECT : Probation officers: funding.
SUMMARY : Requires every county to provide its probation officer
with the resources the probation officer needs to properly
discharge his or her responsibilities, or demonstrate via an
external audit that the county has no discretionary funds to do
so. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, upon receipt of notification from its probation
officer that staff and financial resources available to the
probation officer are insufficient to meet his or her
statutory or court ordered responsibilities, a county, or city
and county, to do either of the following:
a) Provide the probation officer with the resources the
probation officer has identified as necessary to properly
discharge his or her statutory or court-ordered
responsibilities in the notification; or,
b) If the county, or city and county, makes a determination
that it does not have the resources available to meet the
probation officer's needs as identified by the probation
officer in the notification, the county, or city and
county, shall, within 10 days of that determination, notify
the probation officer and the presiding judge of the
superior court of that determination.
2)Requires the county, or city and county, to, within 30 days of
the determination described in 1)b), above, provide a full
financial accounting of its General Fund and discretionary
moneys in order to demonstrate that it does not have the
discretionary resources available to meet the probation
officer's needs as identified by the probation officer in the
notification. This accounting shall be prepared by an
independent auditor who is not an employee of the county, or
city and county.
3)Requires the county, or city and county, if it fails to comply
with the deadlines described in 1)b) and 2), above, to
AB 2373
Page 2
immediately provide the probation officer with the resources
the probation officer has identified as necessary to properly
discharge his or her statutory or court-ordered
responsibilities in the notification.
4)Requires, if the county's, or the city's and county's,
financial accounting required by this bill identifies
discretionary moneys, those moneys to immediately be provided
to the probation officer to help meet the probation officer's
needs as identified by the probation officer in the
notification.
5)Provides that, for the purposes of this bill, "discretionary
moneys" does not include the proceeds of any tax imposed or
levied by a local government solely for the local government's
purposes.
6)Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state
mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a probation officer to notify the presiding judge of
the superior court and the board of supervisors of the county,
or city and county, upon a determination that, in the
probation officer's opinion, staff and financial resources
available to him or her are insufficient to meet his or her
statutory or court ordered responsibilities. The notification
must be in writing, must explain which of those
responsibilities cannot be met, and must explain what
resources are necessary to properly discharge those
responsibilities.
2)Establishes local Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) in
each county with membership primarily comprised of officials
from various law enforcement and service provider agencies and
requires each CCP to recommend to its county board of
supervisors a plan for how to implement the 2011 public safety
realignment.
3)Requires that, after July 1, 2011, all offenders released from
prison who do not have current convictions for serious or
AB 2373
Page 3
violent felonies, who are not third strikers, and who are not
high risk sex offenders will be subject to post-release
supervision by counties rather than subject to state parole
supervision. The county agency responsible for post-release
supervision is to be determined by the county boards of
supervisors.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill requires every county to
provide its probation officer with the resources the probation
officer needs to properly discharge his or her
responsibilities, or demonstrate via an external audit that
the county has no discretionary funds to do so. This bill is
sponsored by the State Coalition of Probation Organizations.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "Probation
Departments and Probation Officers throughout California are
required to comply with specific Constitutional, Statutory,
Regulatory and Court-Ordered mandates. In addition, pursuant
to the Governor's 'Public Safety Realignment' Plan, Probation
Departments and likewise Probation Officers, have seen their
workload and responsibilities greatly increase.
Unfortunately, in far too many counties this increased
workload and responsibility has not been met with commensurate
and necessary increases in funding.
"(Current law) requires each County's Chief Probation Officer
('CPO') to inform his/her presiding judge of the superior
court and the board of supervisors of the county, or city and
county, in writing if the staff and financial resources
available to him/her are insufficient to meet the above
referenced mandates. Unfortunately, in most counties this
statutory requirement is ignored; in any event, in those few
counties were the CPO does notify the County of insufficient
resources, (current law) does not provide any recourse for the
lack of resources."
3)Background . AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15,
Statutes of 2011, made a number of statutory changes to
implement the state's realignment of certain low level
offenders, adult parolees, and juvenile offenders from state
to local jurisdiction. Among its provisions,
AB 2373
Page 4
AB 109 required that, after July 1, 2011, all offenders released
from prison who do not have current convictions for serious or
violent felonies, who are not third strikers, and who are not
high risk sex offenders be subject to post-release supervision
by counties rather than subject to state parole supervision.
AB 109 also created CCPs for each county to recommend to
county boards of supervisors a plan for how to implement the
2011 public safety realignment.
Existing law also requires probation officers to notify their
presiding superior court judge and their board of supervisors
upon a determination that, in the probation officer's opinion,
staff and financial resources available to him or her are
insufficient to meet his or her statutory or court ordered
responsibilities.
This bill establishes an entirely new procedure that counties
must follow after a probation officer makes this notification.
It gives counties two options: a) provide the resources the
probation officer has identified as necessary to discharge his
or her responsibilities; or,
b) determine that it has insufficient resources to do so.
In the latter instance, counties must notify the probation
officer and the presiding superior court judge within 10 days
of the determination. In addition, counties must have an
independent auditor prepare within 30 days a full financial
accounting of its General Fund and discretionary moneys in
order to demonstrate that they do not have the discretionary
resources available to meet the probation officer's needs. If
a county does not meet these deadlines, it must immediately
provide the probation officer with the resources the probation
officer has identified as necessary.
Further, if the county's financial accounting identifies any
discretionary moneys, those moneys must immediately be
provided to the probation officer to help meet the probation
officer's needs (although "discretionary moneys" does not
include the proceeds of any tax imposed or levied by a local
government solely for the local government's purposes).
4)Policy considerations . Counties provide a broad range of
services to county residents, including welfare, child
support, behavioral and public health, firefighting, sheriffs
and coroners, district attorneys, public defenders, county
AB 2373
Page 5
clerks and recorders, treasurer-tax collectors,
assessors/auditors/treasurers, public works, agriculture,
water and resource conservation, libraries, veterans'
services, and other services.
The California State Association of Counties, in opposition,
states, "AB 2373 is impractical and unworkable. It is an
affront to the core responsibility of a county board of
supervisors that must identify budget priorities and allocate
resources across dozens of county departments and hundreds of
vital programs and services delivered at the local level.
Further, the bill sets an unreasonable precedent and
effectively elevates probation's identified needs above all
others."
The Urban Counties Caucus, in opposition, notes, "Counties are
mandated to provide a certain level of services in many other
county functions including health and human services and we
are not allowed any flexibility regarding those funding
levels?we would note that County Boards of Supervisors are
subject to the Brown Act which means that every decision,
action and discussion by the Board regarding our budget
process are public hearings, open to the public and available
for comment by any member of the public including county
staff, advocates, and the general public. Therefore, this
bill is unnecessary."
Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition,
write, "It should also be noted that there is currently a
bifurcation of authority and funding relative to county
probation. In all but a handful of counties, the Chief
Probation Officer is appointed by the courts; however, the
probation department's budget is adopted by the county Board
of Supervisors. RCRC has long-suggested that this governance
model be reviewed. We would suggest the Legislature re-visit
this policy question prior to imposing new budgeting
requirements on county Boards of Supervisors."
5)Arguments in support . The State Coalition of Probation
Organizations, in support, state, "Realignment has created
enhanced danger for probation officers every day.
Furthermore, realignment has resulted in an increased
caseload, as well as more sophisticated and high-risk
offenders for probation. Therefore, it is imperative that
probation officers, who perform the bulk of Realignment
AB 2373
Page 6
duties, have adequate resources to perform their jobs and,
ultimately, to successfully implement realignment."
6)Arguments in opposition . Opponents contend that this bill is
an unprecedented intrusion into the authority of county boards
of supervisors to determine and implement county budgets,
prioritizes probation activities at the detriment of other
county programs and services, and is unnecessary given the
open public process counties follow when developing their
budgets.
7)State mandate . This bill is keyed a state mandate, which
means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for implementing the bill's provisions if
the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill
contains costs mandated by the state.
8)Double-referral . This bill is double-referred to the Public
Safety Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
State Coalition of Probation Organizations [SPONSOR]
Fraternal Order of Police, N. California Probation, Lodge #19
Sacramento County Probation Association
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers' Association
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
Rural County Representatives of California
Urban Counties Caucus
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958