BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 933 (Anderson) - Probation: graduated sanctions.
Amended: May 6, 2014 Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 933 would mandate county chief probation
officers to, by an unspecified date, establish a protocol for
the imposition of graduated sanctions for violations of
probation conditions, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Potentially major one-time and ongoing state-reimbursable
costs (General Fund) for each county to establish and
implement a graduated sanctions protocol for probation
violations as outlined. As the bill requires consideration
of various factors, including a probationer's assessed risk
level, costs to counties to perform assessments for all
probationers, would be substantial, Even those counties
currently utilizing or developing a sanctions matrix could
potentially be eligible for reimbursement by the state.
Unknown, potentially major future cost savings to local
jails, and to a lesser degree state prisons, to the extent
the mandated development and implementation of graduated
sanctions results in successfully reducing recidivism.
Background: Existing law generally authorizes courts to grant
probation to persons convicted of crimes, except as specified,
and defines "probation" as the suspension of the imposition or
execution of a sentence and the order or conditional and
revocable release in the community under the supervision of a
probation officer (PC � 1203 et seq.). In its report, Achieving
Better Outcomes for Adult Probation (2009), the Legislative
Analyst's Office, stated:
Many probationers reoffend, often repeatedly, and for a
variety of reasons. According to the literature, one of
the key strategies to effectively intervene and
interrupt the cycle of reoffending is to establish a
SB 933 (Anderson)
Page 1
system of graduated sanctions. Such a system involves
the use of punishments that are scaled to match the
number and severity of the violations. Typically, this
means imposing less severe sanctions (such as community
service, fines, or increased drug testing) for
first-time and less serious violations, while providing
increasingly stricter sanctions (such as day reporting
centers, intensive supervision, flash incarceration, and
revocation to prison) for subsequent and more serious
violations.
The research also suggests that it is important that
such sanctions be applied to probationers swiftly,
consistently, and with certainty. A well-implemented
system of graduated sanctions acts as a deterrent for
some offenders and interrupts the cycle of reoffending
for others, thereby improving public safety.
Importantly, because many offenders receive a
community-based sanction instead of being revoked to
prison or jail, this approach often provides a much more
cost-effective option than incarceration. (pp. 15-16)
The LAO recommendation in the report to establish a fiscal
incentive program for probation subsequently led to the
enactment of SB 678 (Leno) Chapter 608/2009, which created a
fiscal incentives program that awards to counties a portion of
state savings from reduced prison costs through reduced rates of
probation revocation, and provides additional grants to
proactive counties that currently have low probation failure
rates. The Judicial Council Report on the California Community
Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009 (2013), noted
significant state savings over three years by lowering the
number of probationers sent to state prison.
The implementation of 2011 Public Safety Realignment created two
new categories of post-release supervision by probation
departments: 1) postrelease community supervision (PRCS) for
individuals released from state prison for non-violent,
non-serious, or non-sexual crimes, and, 2) mandatory supervision
for individuals convicted of non-violent, non-serious, or
non-sexual crimes who serve a portion of their jail sentence
supervised by a probation officer as part of a split sentence.
Under current law, county probation departments responsible for
PRCS may determine and order appropriate responses to alleged
SB 933 (Anderson)
Page 2
violations which can include immediate, structured, and
graduated sanctions up to and including imprisonment in a county
jail. This bill seeks to mandate a protocol of graduated
sanctions in each county to be implemented for all probationers.
Proposed Law: This bill would require the chief probation
officer of each county to, by an unspecified date, establish a
protocol for the imposition of graduated sanctions for
violations of the conditions of probation. The protocol shall
set forth a menu of presumptive sanctions for common supervision
violations, including, but not limited to:
Failure to report.
Failure to pay fines.
Failure to participate in a required program, service, or
training.
Failure to complete community service.
Violation of a protective order or a stay-away order.
Failure to refrain from the use of alcohol or controlled
substances.
This bill requires the probation department to consider a
variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the
following for purposes of determining which graduated sanction
to impose:
The severity of the current violation.
The probationer's criminal record.
The probationer's assessed risk level.
The extent to which sanctions were imposed for any previous
violations.
Staff Comments: By mandating the establishment of a protocol for
the imposition of graduated sanctions on chief probation
officers, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program, the
costs of which could be determined to be reimbursable by the
state General Fund. The initial costs of developing such a
protocol in all 58 counties could be significant, and while
unknown, are likely to be substantial. The ongoing costs for
implementation of the protocol, considering the factors that
must be considered (such as the risk assessment level), could
also be in the millions of dollars annually, and would be
dependent on the specific sanctions established in each county.
Staff notes that even those counties currently utilizing or
developing such a protocol could be eligible for reimbursement
by the state for the costs of these activities.
SB 933 (Anderson)
Page 3
Existing law under AB 109 provides that each county agency
responsible for postrelease supervision, as specified, may
determine additional appropriate conditions of supervision,
order the provision of appropriate rehabilitation and treatment
services, determine appropriate incentives, and determine and
order appropriate responses to alleged violations, which can
include, but shall not be limited to, immediate, structured, and
graduated sanctions up to and including imprisonment in a county
jail (PC � 3454(b)).
To the extent the implementation of graduated sanctions for
probation violations across the state successfully reduces
recidivism to county jail, and to a lesser degree state prison
(as most probation violators are no longer revoked to state
prison), could result in major cost savings to local agencies in
reduced enforcement and incarceration costs.