BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
5
2
AB 2521 (Hagman) 1
As Amended May 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
AA:mc
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS:
DATA COLLECTION FOR REALIGNED FELONS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Crime
Victims United of California;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (if amended);
California Correctional
Peace Officers Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 78 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BE REQUIRED TO
COLLECT, ANALYZE AND MAKE AVAILABLE DATA REGARDING RECIDIVISM RATES
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageB
OF REALIGNED FELONS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Board of State and
Community Corrections to collect, analyze and make available
data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced
as a realigned felon (Penal Code section 1170 (h)) or who are
placed on postrelease community supervision (probation
supervision of persons coming out of prison) on or after July 1,
2015, as specified.
Current law establishes the "Board of State and Community
Corrections" ("BSCC"), with the following mission:
The mission of the board shall include providing
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. (Penal Code � 6024(b).)
Current law enumerates the duties of the BSCC, including the
following with respect to data collection and analysis:
"Collect and maintain available information and data
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageC
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. "The board shall seek
to collect and make publicly available up-to-date data and
information reflecting the impact of state and community
correctional, juvenile justice, and gang-related policies
and practices enacted in the state, as well as information
and data concerning promising and evidence-based practices
from other jurisdictions."
Develop recommendations for the improvement of criminal
justice and delinquency and gang prevention activity
throughout the state.
Identify, promote, and provide technical assistance
relating to evidence-based programs, practices, and
promising and innovative projects consistent with the
mission of the board.
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, as specified.
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.
Conduct evaluation studies of the programs and
activities assisted by the federal acts.
Identify and evaluate state, local, and federal gang and
youth violence suppression, intervention, and prevention
programs and strategies, along with funding for those
efforts, as specified;
Collect county realignment plans, as specified, and
analyze and report on "available data regarding the
implementation of the local plans and other outcome-based
measures," as specified;
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageD
Support the development and implementation of first
phase baseline and ongoing data collection instruments to
reflect the local impact of realignment, specifically
related to dispositions for felony offenders and
postrelease community supervision, including making any
data collected in this regard available on the BSCC Web
site, as specified. (Penal Code � 6027(a) and (b).)
Current law additionally authorizes the BSCC to:
Collect, evaluate, publish, and disseminate statistics
and other information on the condition and progress of
criminal justice in the state; and
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. (Penal Code �
6027(c).)
This bill would require the BSCC, commencing on and after July
1, 2015, 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 of all persons who receive a sentence as a
realigned felon (specifically, persons sentenced pursuant to
paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 1170) or who
are placed on postrelease community supervision on or after July
1, 2015.
This bill would require that the data "include, as it becomes
available, recidivism rates for these offenders one, two, and
three years after their release in the community."
This bill would require BSCC to "make any data collected
pursuant to this paragraph available on the board's Internet Web
site on a quarterly basis beginning on September 1, 2016." This
bill would define "recidivism" to have the same meaning as the
definition of the term developed by BSCC, as specified.
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageE
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageF
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageG
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
A continuing theme in the hearings of the Select
Committee on Justice Reinvestment and in reports from
outside entities like the Public Policy Institute of
California is the need for accurate, up-to-date, and
policy-relevant data.
It is imperative that we track the recidivism rates of
offenders who, before realignment, would have served
their sentence in prison, but who are now serving
those sentences in county jails. This is important
data that is necessary to evaluate the effects of
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageH
realignment on public safety in our communities and
the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.
This bill builds on last year's AB 1050 (Dickinson)
which, among other things, required the Board of State
and Community Corrections to develop a common
definition of the term "recidivism." This bill goes
the next step and requires the Board, after July 1,
2015, to report the recidivism rates of those either
sentenced under, or receiving post-release community
supervision under the public safety realignment law.
Consistent with the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's data for parolees, it would require
this to be reported for those 1, 2, and 3 years after
release. Collecting and reporting recidivism data is
an essential part of any thoughtful approach toward
evaluating the success of realignment and in
identifying any need for changes.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would require BSCC to collect and analyze data
regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced as a
realigned felon (Penal Code section 1170 (h)) or who are placed
on postrelease community supervision (probation supervision of
persons coming out of prison) on or after July 1, 2015. This
duty would start July 1, 2015, and would require BSCC to consult
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.
The bill would require that the data "include, as it becomes
available, recidivism rates for these offenders one, two, and
three years after their release in the community," BSCC would
be required to "make any data collected pursuant to this
paragraph available on the board's Internet Web site on a
quarterly basis beginning on September 1, 2016."
3. Focus of this Bill: The 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment
This bill pertains to collecting recidivism data about two
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageI
specific subgroups of felony offenders - those created by the
"2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" (AB
109)<1>. These two subgroups are 1) felony offenders who,
because of their conviction offense and criminal history, are
subject to serving the custodial term of their sentence in jail
instead of prison ("jail" felonies); and 2) felony offenders
who, because of their conviction offense and other factors, are
subject to local supervision instead of state supervision
(essentially, probation instead of parole) upon release from
prison ("postrelease community supervision").
"Jail" Felonies
Under California law operative until October 1, 2011, a felony
was a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in state
prison.<2> Effective October 1, 2011, criminal justice
realignment redefined the term "felony" to include certain
felonies punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, as
specified, depending upon the criminal history of the
offender.<3> This change, contained in subdivision (h) of Penal
Code section 1170, applies only to criminal statutes which have
been expressly amended to provide for a felony jail term where
---------------------------
<1> AB 109 (Committee on Budget) (Ch. 15, Stats. 2011) is the
principal measure establishing the 2011 public safety
realignment. Several subsequent measures revised AB 109 and
enacted additional provisions relating to certain aspects of
realignment.
<2> Penal Code � 17. This classification does not affect the
ability of the court to suspend execution of a felony sentence
and impose conditions of probation where allowable, supervised
and performed locally. (See Penal Code � 1203.1.) A
misdemeanor is a crime punishable by imprisonment by 6 months or
not more than one year. (Penal Code �� 19 and 19.2.)
<3> Penal Code � 17.
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageJ
otherwise allowable.<4>
Certain felons are categorically prohibited from serving an
executed felony sentence in county jail. The following persons
are statutorily ineligible to serve any executed felony sentence
in county jail:
The defendant has a prior or current felony conviction
for:
o a serious felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 1192.7, or
o a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of
Section 667.5;
The defendant has a prior felony conviction in another
jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a
serious or violent felony in California, as specified;
The defendant is required to register as a sex offender;
or
The defendant is convicted of a crime and as part of the
sentence receives an aggravated theft enhancement, as
specified.<5>
For convicted felony offenders subject to confinement in a
county jail, courts are authorized to impose the felony sentence
to commit a defendant to county jail as follows:
For a full term in custody as determined in accordance
with the applicable sentencing law.
For a term as determined in accordance with the
applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a
concluding portion of the term selected in the court's
discretion, during which time the defendant shall be
supervised by the county probation officer in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally
--------------------------
<4> This feature of criminal justice realignment - that its
newly-created felony jail sanction can be applied only to those
criminal statutes expressly amended to include a cross-reference
authorizing that sanction - largely accounts for the length of
AB 109 (663 pages).
<5> Penal Code � 1170(h) (3).
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageK
applicable to persons placed on probation, for the
remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the
court. The period of supervision shall be mandatory, and
may not be earlier terminated except by court order.
During the period when the defendant is under such
supervision, unless in actual custody related to the
sentence imposed by the court, the defendant shall be
entitled to only actual time credit against the term of
imprisonment imposed by the court.<6>
Postrelease Community Supervision
Prior to realignment, California law generally provided that
persons who had served a determinate sentence in state prison
for a felony were subject to up to three years of conditional
release ("parole") supervised by the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation ("CDCR").<7> This policy of providing a
period of conditional, supervised release for felons immediately
following a determinate prison term has continued under
realignment.<8> Realignment requires, however, that on and
after October 1, 2011 some of these felons - generally depending
upon the crime that sent them to prison - are subject instead to
postrelease community supervision ("PRCS") by a local entity
determined by each county's board of supervisors - which in
every county has been determined to be probation.
---------------------------
<6> Penal Code � 1170(h) (5). Note that this provision has
been amended very recently by a budget trailer bill passed by
the legislature on June 15th of this year, AB 1468 (Committee on
Budget), and as of the writing of this analysis is assumed to be
signed by the Governor. The amendments will create a
presumption that an offender be given a sentence "split" to
include custodial and community supervision, to become effective
and operative on and after January 1, 2015.
<7> See Penal Code � 3000. Parole periods for certain
offenses, such as sex crimes, can exceed three years;
realignment does not change the length of these parole periods.
<8> See Penal Code � 3000(a) (1).
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageL
Certain inmates are categorically excluded from PRCS by statute;
these offenders are subject to state parole supervision.
Specifically, prison inmates conditionally released after
serving a sentence for one of the following crimes are
statutorily excluded from PRCS, and instead are supervised by
state parole:
1. A serious felony as described in subdivision (c)
of Section 1192.7.
2. A violent felony as described in subdivision
(c) of Section 667.5.
3. A crime for which the person has been
sentenced to a life term under the 3-strikes law.
4. Any crime where the person eligible for
release from prison is classified as a High Risk Sex
Offender.
5. Any crime where the person is required, as a
condition of parole, to undergo treatment by the
Department of Mental Health as a mentally ill
offender.
6. Any felony committed while the person was on
parole for a period exceeding three years where the
person was required to register as a sex offender or
was subject to parole for life, as specified.<9>
On and after October 1, 2011, persons released from prison after
serving a determinate prison sentence who are not excluded
because of the above-enumerated reasons are subject to PRCS
provided by a county agency designated by each county's board of
supervisors "which is consistent with evidence-based practices,
including, but not limited to, supervision policies, procedures,
programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific research to
reduce recidivism among individuals under postrelease
supervision."<10>
---------------------------
<9> Penal Code � 3000.08. See also Penal Code � 3451(b).
<10> Penal Code � 3451. Realignment requires counties notify
CDCR on or before August 1, 2011 of the county agencies that
have been designated as the local entity responsible for
providing postrelease supervision. (Section 69, AB 117.)
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageM
Criminal justice realignment provides that PRCS shall not extend
beyond three years from the date of the person's initial entry
onto postrelease supervision, except when a bench or arrest
warrant has been issued by a court or its designated hearing
officer and the person has not appeared. During the time the
warrant is outstanding the supervision period shall be tolled
and when the person appears before the court or its designated
hearing officer the supervision period may be extended for a
period equivalent to the time tolled.<11> PRCS is required to
be "implemented by a county agency according to a postrelease
strategy designated by each county's board of supervisors."<12>
As noted by the Legislative Analyst's Office last year:
When including all types of criminal cases-felony,
misdemeanor, traffic infractions, and juvenile
delinquency-there were over 8 million filings in
California trial courts in 2009-10. Only a few
hundred thousand of these are for felony cases each
year. Of adult felony cases brought by the district
attorney, 80 percent result in a guilty verdict, and
most of these offenders are sentenced to a combination
of jail and probation.<13>
During this same period, 58,700 felons were admitted to
prison.<14> While the data supporting this snapshot predates
realignment, it illustrates a felony population broader than
what this bill would reach. This bill does not seek data
concerning 1) felons who are put on felony probation; 2) felons
who are sent to prison; and 3) prison inmates who are supervised
by parole upon release from prison. As currently drafted, the
focus of this bill is on felons whose custody or supervision was
changed by realignment. Members and the author may wish to
discuss whether felony offenders and what happens to them should
---------------------------
<11> Penal Code � 3455.
<12> Penal Code � 3451(c) (1).
<13> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer (Jan.
2013) Legislative Analyst's Office.
<14> Id.
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageN
be tracked and analyzed more fully, not just the subsets of
felony offenders created by realignment.
4. Data Collection
The BSCC currently has responsibilities relating to data
collection. As explained in the BSCC's 4th Quarterly Report
from last year:
The BSCC has the broad responsibility 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. The
BSCC is also required to collect data and complete
reports related to public safety realignment,
including the development of first phase baseline and
ongoing data collection instruments and an annual
report on the implementation of local community
corrections plans.
In its first year, the BSCC has made significant
progress toward its data collection and reporting
responsibilities as defined by goal one. The BSCC has
worked with stakeholders to design and implement first
phase realignment baseline data collection instruments
that will continue to be expanded and refined, has
completed a report on the local implementation of
community corrections plans, has made data available
on its Web site, developed a partnership with the
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) for a
multi-county individual level study, and begun
implementing longer term strategies for its broader
data collection and reporting responsibilities.
First Phase Baseline and Ongoing Realignment-Related
Data Collection Instruments : Commencing on or after
July 1, 2012, the BSCC is required to consult with the
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageO
California State Association of Counties (CSAC),
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Chief
Probation Officers of California (CPOC), and the
California State Sheriff's Association (CSSA) to
support the development and implementation of first
phase baseline and ongoing data collection instruments
to reflect the local impact of the 2011 Realignment
Legislation, specifically related to dispositions for
felony offenders and post-release community
supervision; make the data available on the BSCC Web
site; and promote collaboration and the reduction of
duplication of data collection and reporting, where
possible.
Completed : In December 2012, the BSCC consulted with
representatives from CSAC, AOC, CPOC, and CSSA and
reached agreement that the realignment-related data
currently collected by the BSCC, CPOC, and the AOC
will serve as the first phase baseline and ongoing
data collection instruments for this fiscal year. . .
. . .
Data Integration : Due to staggered implementation
dates, the baseline data collection efforts as well as
the CCP report are all being reported separately.
After September 2013, the BSCC will work to integrate
the data from the baseline instruments with data
collected from the report on the implementation of
county CCP plans to provide a broader realignment
perspective.
In Progress : The BSCC has initiated a request for
technical assistance from the Integrated Justice
Information Systems Institute (IJIS) to identify the
needs and specifications of an information technology
system to collect and synthesize a variety of data
from multiple sources. IJIS is a nonprofit membership
organization dedicated to joining forces with its
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageP
member companies to unite the private and public
sectors for improving mission-critical information
sharing. These members are information technology
companies and consultancies that provide solutions to
the justice, public safety, and homeland security
sectors to help these communities share information. .
. . The purpose of this request is to assist the BSCC
to develop a "road map" and plan to design an
information system to support and provide relevant
adult and juvenile criminal justice data to our
stakeholders, constituents, research community, and
the public.
Future Activities : After September 2013, when the AOC
begins to report its data, the BSCC plans to work
toward integrating the data from all baseline
instruments with data collected from the BSCC report
on the implementation of county CCP plans to provide a
broader realignment perspective. The BSCC's data
collection efforts will continue to be refined and
expanded in conjunction with the development of longer
term research questions.
. . .
Partnerships : The BSCC is working to build
partnerships with research organizations, academia,
and others on research projects related to
California's corrections system.
In Progress : The BSCC is working with the PPIC to
develop a multi-county data collection project, which
will track offender behavior at the individual level
and system responses in custody and in the community.
This project will assist the BSCC to achieve its
mission of aligning fiscal policy and correctional
practices to improve public safety through
cost-effective, promising, and evidence-based
strategies for managing criminal justice populations.
. . The BSCC is partnering with the United States
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageQ
DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' Diagnostic Center on
several issues, including strategic planning,
developing an information systems plan, developing
statewide technical assistance strategies, and grant
funding.
(More)
Future Activities : The BSCC will continue to expand
its research partnerships to support research efforts
that can inform state and local policy and decision
making.
In January 2013, the Board approved the establishment
of a standing committee on data and research. The
purpose of this committee is to work with the BSCC
staff on the development of a comprehensive data
collection plan, the coordination of data collection
efforts by the BSCC with other entities to avoid
duplication of effort, and to leverage resources of
various groups focusing on the same or similar data
collection goals and objectives. . . .
In Progress : The BSCC is currently working to
identify individuals with expertise in data and
research to serve on the Data and Research Standing
Committee.
Future Activities : The Data and Research Standing
Committee will coordinate with the BSCC staff on the
development of a long-term research plan.
Other Strategies and Activities : Other strategies and
activities that the BSCC anticipates completing as
part of its data and research responsibilities and to
complement the activities currently underway include:
developing a long-term data collection and reporting
strategy; determining the needs and capabilities of a
consolidated realignment baseline database; helping
counties develop appropriate outcome measures to be
collected locally and inform data driven decision
making; developing processes for the reporting and
collecting of juvenile out-of-home and adult
out-of-county placements; and, developing standardized
definitions/dictionary of terms.
Members of the Committee and the author may wish to discuss how
(More)
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageS
this bill differs from work now underway at the BSCC with
respect to data collection and analysis. In addition, SB 852
(Leno), the 2014-15 budget bill, contains the following
language:
The Board of State and Community Corrections shall
provide, no later than February 15, 2015, a report to
the Governor and the Legislature describing a set of 6
to 12 recommended performance metrics that are
available or should be commonly available and can be
used to provide information to county governments, the
Legislature, and the Governor about the results of a
county's community corrections system. In developing
the report, the board is strongly encouraged to
consult with stakeholders and nonpartisan research
organizations. The report shall include, but not be
limited to, definitions of data points, a description
of where the data may be accessed, and how the data
may be interpreted.
HOW DOES THIS BILL COMPARE TO THE CURRENT DATA-RELATED
ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE PLANS OF THE BSCC?
5. Similar Bill
Earlier this year this Committee heard and passed SB 1097
(Nielsen), which proposed to enact a framework, established
through the BSCC, for collecting information concerning the same
felony offenders targeted by this bill. That bill enumerates
specific data to be included. With respect to jail felons, the
data generally pertains to information about the offender, the
conviction offense, the sentence, what happened to the person
after sentencing, such as jail time, programming and violation
behavior. With respect to persons coming out of prison on
postrelease community supervision (probation, not parole,
supervision), the data generally concerns arrests, violation
behavior, sanctions for violations, and programming. SB 1097
was held in Senate Appropriations Committee on suspense.
AB 2521 (Hagman)
PageT
***************