BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2373
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2373 (Hernández) - As Amended: April 24, 2014
SUMMARY : Requires every county to provide its probation officer
with the resources the probation officer needs to properly
discharge his or her responsibilities or provide notification,
as specified, that it does not have the resources available to
do so. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, within 30 days of 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 determine if it has the resources available to
meet the probation officer's needs as described in the
notification and to do either of the following:
a) Notify the probation officer and the presiding judge of
the superior court that it has the necessary resources and
commence providing the probation officer with the resources
the probation officer identified as necessary to properly
discharge his or her statutory or court-ordered
responsibilities in the notification if the county, or city
and county, determines that it has the necessary resources;
or,
b) Notify the probation officer and the presiding judge of
the superior court that it does not have the necessary
resources available to meet the probation officer's needs
as identified by the probation officer in the notification
if the county, or city and county, determines that it does
not have the necessary resources.
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
AB 2373
Page 2
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. States that 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. (Pen. Code, § 1203.74.)
2)Authorizes the establishment of a local Community Corrections
Partnership (CCP) in each county and requires each CCP to
recommend a local plan to its county board of supervisors for
the implementation of the 2011 public safety realignment.
(Pen. Code, §§ 1203., subd. (b) & 1203.1, subd. (a).)
3)Requires that, on and after October 1, 2011, all inmates
released from prison who do not have current convictions for
serious or violent felonies, as specified; who are not third
strikers; and who are not high-risk sex offenders be subject
to postrelease community supervision (PRCS) by counties,
rather than be placed under state parole supervision, for no
more than 3 years immediately following release. Provides
that community supervision is to be provided by a county
agency designated by each county's board of supervisor, as
described. (Pen. Code, § 3451.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "In order to
assure that Probation Departments throughout California have
the resources necessary to properly and fully effectuate
'Realignment', and more importantly, in order to insure the
safety of public citizens, and to properly inform the victims
of crimes, AB 2373 will simply require each County Executive
Officer, upon written notice from his/her Chief Probation
Officer pursuant to Penal Section 1203.74, to either fully
fund Probation mandates, or to justify the County's failure to
do so."
2)Effect on Criminal Justice Realignment : Criminal justice
realignment created two classifications of felonies: those
punishable in county jail and those punishable in state
prison. Realignment limited which felons can be sent to state
prison, thus requiring that more felons serve their sentences
AB 2373
Page 3
in county jails. The law applies to qualified defendants who
commit qualifying offenses and who were sentenced on or after
October 1, 2011. Specifically, sentences to state prison are
now mainly limited to registered sex offenders and individuals
with a current or prior serious or violent offense. In
addition to the serious, violent, and registerable offenses
eligible for state prison incarceration, there are
approximately 70 felonies which have been specifically
excluded from eligibility for local custody (i.e., the
sentence for which must be served in state prison).
Realignment also shifted the supervision of some released prison
inmates from California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) parole agents to local probation
departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for
inmates released from prison on or after October 1, 2011 is
limited to those defendants whose term were for a serious or
violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are
classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to
undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who,
while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§
3000.08, subds. (a) & (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other
inmates released from prison are subject to up to three years
of PRCS under local supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08,
subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)
3)Funding for Realignment Shifted to Local Governments : As part
of realignment the state shifted certain revenues to local
governments. As explained by the Legislative Analyst's
Office, the 2011-12 budget package included statutory changes
to realign several criminal justice and other programs from
state responsibility to local governments, primarily counties.
Along with the shift, or realignment, of programs, state law
realigned revenues to locals. Specifically, current law
shifts a share of the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle
License Fee revenue, to local governments. The passage of
Proposition 30 by voters in November 2012, among other
changes, guaranteed these revenues to local governments in the
future.
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
clerks and recorders, treasurer-tax collectors,
AB 2373
Page 4
assessors/auditors/treasurers, public works, agriculture,
water and resource conservation, libraries, veterans'
services, and other services. Consideration should be given
on whether it is appropriate to require a county to use its
discretionary funds in the manner proposed by this bill.
5)Argument in Support : As stated by the State Coalition of
Probation Organizations , "The reality is that 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 preform [sic] the bulk of Realignment
duties, have adequate resources to perform their jobs and,
ultimately, to successfully implement realignment.
"In order to assure that Probation Departments throughout
California have the resources necessary to properly and fully
effectuate Realignment, and more importantly, in order to
insure the safety of public citizens, and to properly inform
the victims of crimes, AB 2373 will simply require each County
Executive Officer, upon written notice from his/her Chief
Probation Officer pursuant to Penal Section 1203.74, to either
fully fund Probation mandates, or to justify the County's
failure to do so."
6)Argument in Opposition : The Rural County Representatives of
California argue that "AB 2373 ultimately challenges the
budgeting authority vested with county Boards of Supervisors
over their local probation department by requiring a written
formal response to a document sent by the Chief Probation
Officer outlining demands for additional financial resources.
As such, the Probation Department is treated in a different -
and elevated - manner than other county departments with
respect to its budget. Passage of this measure only invites
other county departments, particularly those involved in the
local criminal justice spectrum (sheriff's department, drug
and alcohol treatment services, mental health programs, etc.)
to seek a different process for determining their respective
budget."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2373
Page 5
State Coalition of Probation Organizations (Sponsor)
Association of Probation Supervisors
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Fraternal Order of Police, N. California Probation, Lodge #19
Inyo Probation Peace Officer Association
Madera County Probation Peace Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Sacramento County Probation Association
San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association
San Luis Obispo County Probation Officers' Association
Shasta County Professional Peace officers Association
Stanislaus County Deputy Probation Officers Association
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Teamsters Local Union No. 856 Law Enforcement Division
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers' Association
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744