BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2373
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2373 (Hernandez) - As Amended: April 24, 2014
Policy Committee: Local
GovernmentVote:6 - 2
Public Safety 5 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires every county to provide its probation
officers with the resources probation officers needs to properly
discharge their responsibilities or provide notification 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
chief probation officer that staff and financial resources
available to the chief probation officer are insufficient to
meet his or her statutory or court-ordered responsibilities, a
county to determine if it has the resources available to meet
the probation department's needs as described in the
notification and to do either of the following:
a) Notify the chief probation officer and the presiding
judge of the superior court that it has the necessary
resources and commence providing the probation department
with those resources.
b) Notify the chief 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.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potentially reimbursable costs to counties, likely in the
range of $50,000 to $150,000, to determine whether surplus
funds are available and notify the chief probation officer and
AB 2373
Page 2
court of the determination.
2)Unknown costs, but likely in the tens of millions of dollars,
to counties for increased payments to probation departments,
should the Commission on State Mandates determine the bill
requires counties to be reimbursed for this cost. Probation
caseload statewide is approximately 350,000 (40,000 from
realignment). If county probation departments determined they
lacked funding for 1% of their non-realignment case load, they
would require over $20 million in funding.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . 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."
2)Realignment . 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. 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. Realignment also shifted
the supervision of some released prison inmates from
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
parole agents to local probation departments.
As part of realignment the state shifted 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.
Existing law requires a probation officer to notify the
AB 2373
Page 3
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. Current law does not require
that these resources be provided.
3)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 duties, have adequate
resources to perform their jobs and, ultimately, to
successfully implement realignment."
4)Opposition . Counties provide a broad range of services to
county residents, including welfare, child support,
firefighting, sheriffs and coroners, district attorneys,
public defenders, county clerks and recorders, tax collectors,
assessors, public works, 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081