BILL NUMBER: AB 1255 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 1, 1999
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 1999
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 7, 1999
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Wright
FEBRUARY 26, 1999
An act to add Section 3060.8 to, and to add and repeal
Chapter 1.3 (commencing with Section 1210) of Title 8 of Part 2 of
, the Penal Code, relating to sentencing and making
an appropriation therefor .
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1255, as amended, R. Wright. Sentencing: intensive
correctional supervision program.
(1) Existing law provides as a sentencing option for
convicted felons, that the felon be placed on probation with
court-ordered conditions of probation, if eligible, or sentenced to a
term of imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would set forth legislative findings and declarations of
intent in regard to prison crowding and the need for community-based
probation and parole intermidiate sanctions as alternatives to
imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide for the awarding of grants for the
establishment of intensive correctional supervision
intervention programs, as specified, to
for which convicted felony offenders
who meet enumerated criteria may be sentenced by a court for up to 9
months and upon completion of which the offender would be required to
be placed on probation for up to 4 years. The bill would require
that the programs commence on or after July 1, 2002.
This bill would require the probation officers of participating
counties to make an investigation of the offender's eligibility and
suitability for intensive correctional supervision, the results of
which would be included in the probation officer's recommendation to
the court persons are determined to be eligible
pursuant to prescribed criteria applied by a probation department or
parole agency, as the case may be .
This bill would specify that the chief probation officer of each
participating county would be responsible for the county program
under the bill and for coordinating and contracting for all related
services. The bill would also specify that the Board of Corrections
would have administrative responsibility for, and oversight of, the
county programs.
The bill would provide that funding for the parole component
of the bill is contingent upon an unspecified
appropriation in the Budget Act of 1999 from which
the Board of Corrections would be required to provide funds to
counties for the purposes of the bill for the
Department of Corrections parole programs.
The bill would appropriate $6,000,000 from the Budget Act of 1999
to the Board of Corrections to be allocated to Los Angeles, San
Francisco, San Diego, and Shasta Counties for purposes of the
probation demonstration program .
This bill would also require the Department of
Corrections, on or before January 1, 2007, to evaluate, as specified,
the intensive correctional supervision programs and report the
conclusions of its evaluations to the Legislature each
agency participating in the intensive intervention program to
conduct an evaluation of the program and report its findings and
conclusions to the Board of Corrections at specified times .
The bill would provide that its the above
provisions shall remain in effect until January 1,
2008 2006 , and as of that date are repealed.
(2) Under existing law, the supervision, management and control of
the state prisons, and the responsibility for the care, custody,
treatment, training, discipline, and employment, of persons confined
therein are vested in the Director of Corrections. Existing law sets
forth the powers and the duties of the Board of Prison Terms and the
Department of Corrections in connection with the parole of persons
in the custody of the state prison system.
This bill would require the Department of Corrections, subject to
the appropriation of funding in the Budget Act of 1999, and
subsequent budget acts, to establish, operate, and evaluate pilot
projects, as specified, in 2 or more locations within the state
parole system as determined by the director of the department for the
purpose of determining whether a revised approach to the
supervision, sanction, and control of parolees can result in a more
cost-effective deployment of parole staff, reduced recidivism by
parole violators, savings on state incarceration costs, and improved
public safety.
The department would be required to submit to the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee and the fiscal committees of both houses
of the Legislature, by December 1 of each year, interim reports on
the progress of the pilot projects toward implementation and initial
findings regarding cost-effectiveness and performance of the
projects, and to submit by December 1, 2002, a report that evaluates
the overall cost-effectiveness and performance of the pilot projects,
as specified.
Vote: majority 2/3 .
Appropriation: no yes . Fiscal
committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
Intensive Probation and Parole Intervention Partnership Act of 2000.
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) The state prison population on June 30, 1998, was 158,207
compared to 72,121 on June 30, 1988, an annual compounded growth of
8.2 percent.
(2) Without some significant change in this growth, or alternative
sentencing programs, the state will be forced to spend billions of
dollars in new state prison construction.
(3) The practice of the imprisonment of new commitments and
probation and parole violators in the state prison who serve one year
or less offers little opportunity to implement strategies to manage
offender behavior and to sustain long-term behavior change that would
promote public safety.
(4) The 24-member Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population
Management, including the 13 members appointed by the Governor,
unanimously agreed in its final report that "...insufficient
prevention efforts, intermediate sanctions, and programs for those
incarcerated exist, and as a result, there are offenders incarcerated
and on probation who judges and parole authorities would, and
should, manage differently if those sanctions were available."
(5) The commission found that certain individuals with no history
of violence and noncareer offenders are likely target populations for
punishment options other than prison.
(6) The commission recommended intensive probation supervision,
residential and nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs,
and other community-based punishment options as alternatives to state
prison for minor parole violators and nonviolent offenders facing
short prison commitments.
(7) Intensive intervention programs have reduced recidivism and
prison overcrowding in other states that have adopted similar
programs.
(8) State and local intervention programs should be viewed as an
interconnected system that provide an array of appropriate punishment
alternatives, including intermediate punishment options.
(9) A strategy of realigning juvenile and adult justice
responsibilities of local probation and state parole systems in a
manner that maintains public safety, increases accountability, and
reduces costs is needed.
(10) Local probation departments have lacked sufficient resources
to effectively deal with an increasing offender population. without
sufficient financial resources to manage supervision programs,
caseload size in Los Angeles County swelled to 1,000 probationers to
one deputy probation officer for "bank" caseloads. There are 45,000
medium-risk adult probationers assigned to these "bank" caseloads.
(11) Counties in other parts of the state, while not impacted to
the same degree as Los Angeles, have reported similar problems in the
effective management of offender caseload size.
(12) Inadequate supervision and programming at the local level
often results in continued violation of the court's order, continued
commission of crimes and escalating levels of enforcement resulting
in the offender's commitment to state prison.
(13) Los Angeles County reports 11,165 youthful offenders ages 18
to 25 years, inclusive, among those assigned to "bank" caseloads.
This segment of offender population has the greater propensity for
substance abuse and violence and is most likely to be amenable to
education and job interventions.
(14) It is the intent of the Legislature that local government be
given the opportunity to participate in a state-local partnership to
manage the state's offender population.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to endorse the commission'
s findings as to the need for community-based intermediate sanctions
to implement a system of intensive intervention programs, drug
testing and treatment, intermediate punishment options, and mandatory
educational and employment programs.
SEC. 3. Chapter 1.3 (commencing with Section 1210) is added to
Title 8 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, to read:
CHAPTER 1.3. INTERVENTION PROBATION AND PAROLE PARTNERSHIP ACT
OF 2000
1210. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
Intervention Probation and Parole Partnership Act of 2000.
1210.1. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Intensive intervention" means a program, established pursuant
to this chapter and administered by a county probation department or
parole agency, consisting of highly structured and closely
supervised probation and parole which emphasizes appropriate
interventions, including, but not limited to, treatment of substance
abuse, education, counseling, employment development, payment of
restitution to crime victims, fines, and penalty assessments.
(b) "Officer" means a probation officer or parole agent as defined
in Section 830.5.
(c) "Offender" means a person who is on probation or parole who
has been ordered to participate in an intensive intervention program.
(d) "Board" means the Board of Corrections.
1210.2. For the grant programs identified in this chapter,
participating counties may include, but are not limited to, the
following guidelines:
(a) The demonstration programs shall provide varying levels of
supervision in accordance with the offenders behavior and progress.
At the most intensive level of supervision, no officer may supervise
more than 50 offenders at one time.
(b) At the most intensive level of supervision, close supervision
and observation of offenders being supervised may include, but not be
limited to, all of the following:
(1) Weekly contacts between an officer and the offender.
(2) Frequent chemical testing for the use of alcohol, controlled
substances, or both, where use of any of these has been prohibited as
a condition of participation in the program, or by order of the
court.
(3) At least weekly contact by an officer and the offender's
employer, educational institution, treatment program, or counselor.
(4) Availability for referral to state-licensed inpatient and
outpatient treatment programs for alcohol and drug abuse when
appropriate.
(5) Job training, placement, education programs, or any
combination of these, shall be mandatory for any offender who is not
employed full time or is not a full-time student and is medically
capable of participating in the programs.
(6) A requirement that each offender participate five days each
week, with employment, education, a job search, job training,
community service, counseling treatment, or a combination of these
activities, as directed by an officer until gainfully employed,
except where this is not possible because of documented mental or
physical health constraints. An offender who is gainfully employed
shall continue to receive counseling or treatment or both if an
officer determines that the offender requires the continuation of
those activities, in order to successfully complete the program.
(c) Participating counties shall establish base-line statistical
information which shall form the basis for comparison purposes for
evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs.
1210.3. The demonstration programs may also include any or all of
the following:
(a) House arrest.
(b) Electronic monitoring.
(c) Bio-metric monitoring, for example palm print or retina
identification.
(d) Community service.
(e) A probation treatment program involving restitution to the
victim, and the payment of fines and penalty assessments, by the
offender.
(f) Placement in a substance abuse community correctional center
if available.
1210.4. (a) An offender shall be considered eligible for a
program, pursuant to this chapter, if it appears from all information
available that the offender would benefit from, and that public
safety would not be threatened by, the offender's participation in
the program, as determined by the appropriate probation or parole
agency. Public safety and offender accountability shall be the
primary considerations.
(b) A probation officer or parole agent shall consider the
criteria contained in this chapter in determining whether or not the
defendant would benefit from education, treatment, and
rehabilitation, and whether or not the offender would pose a threat
to public safety.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
that youthful offenders ages 18 to 25 years of age who have substance
abuse problems be given priority in participating in the program
provided under this chapter.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the
authority of a court to impose confinement in a county jail or a
community correctional facility as a condition of probation.
(e) A court may impose terms and conditions consistent with the
requirements of this chapter and shall, as an additional condition,
require the offender to waive any right to a hearing to contest
imposition by a probation officer of the intermediate sanctions
specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1210.9. The court may also
impose additional terms and conditions as provided for by law for
persons placed on probation or given a conditional sentence under
Section 1203.
(f) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit an
offender's right to petition for termination of a period of probation
under Section 1203.3 or to seek dismissal of the accusations or
information under Section 1203.4. However, an offender may exercise
his or her rights under these sections only upon successful
completion of this program under probation or parole supervision.
(g) The chief probation officer of each county shall be
responsible for the county probation intensive intervention programs
and for coordinating and contracting for all related services.
(h) This section shall not apply to a person committed to the
Department of Corrections on or before January 1, 2000.
1210.5. (a) Funding for the parole component of the programs
established pursuant to this chapter is contingent upon an
appropriation in the Budget Act of 1999 for the Department of
Corrections parole programs.
(1) The sum of six million dollars ($6,000,000) is hereby
appropriated from the General Fund to the following counties, for
purposes of the probation demonstration program, as follows:
(A) Two million three hundred thousand dollars ($2,300,000) to the
County of Los Angeles.
(B) One million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) to the
City and County of San Francisco.
(C) On million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) to the
County of San Diego.
(D) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the County of
Shasta.
(b) Future funding for purposes of this act shall be pursuant to
appropriations in the annual Budget Act.
(c) Each county shall establish and maintain a separate fund
account in order to identify the expenditure of funds appropriated
pursuant to this chapter and clearly show the manner of disposition.
These funds shall be used by county probation departments only for
intensive intervention programs and to contract for services to
offenders in the program, as authorized by this chapter.
(d) Each county probation department and the state parole agency
shall provide reports of expenditures and other relevant information,
as deemed appropriate, in the manner and form prescribed in the
annual progress report to the board.
(e) The board shall receive the annual progress reports, the
30-month evaluation report, and the final reports from the counties
and state parole agency.
1210.6. An offender's participation in a program shall be
periodically reviewed and evaluated to determine his or her needs and
performance in the program. The level of intervention may be
modified, including transferring him or her to regular supervision.
1210.7. (a) If it is determined after a hearing by the court that
an offender in a probation intensive intervention program has
committed an additional public offense or has otherwise violated a
condition of probation, the court may revoke probation and order any
disposition authorized by law, including remanding the offender to
the state prison for the full term of the offense for which he or she
was committed.
(b) As an additional intermediate sanction a court may order a
probation offender to serve up to 30 days in a county jail. Time
served in a county jail shall not be considered to be part of the
prescribed period of intensive community corrections.
1210.8. County probation departments are authorized to use funds
to contract as necessary for substance abuse treatment, employment,
and education assistance, mental health counseling, and other
necessary services as provided for in this chapter. Priority shall
be given to utilizing available and appropriate public agency
services. Custody in secure facilities shall be provided by sworn
peace officers or correctional officers as defined by state law.
1210.9. (a) Each agency participating in the intensive
intervention program shall conduct an evaluation of the program and
report its findings and conclusions to the board as follows:
(1) Thirty months following operational implementation of the
program.
(2) At the conclusion of the five-year program or by January 1,
2006.
(b) The evaluation shall include an analysis of the effectiveness
of these programs for identified outcome measurements including, but
not limited to: reducing prison crowding, recidivism, substance
abuse, increasing job placement, completion of high school education
or equivalency, and vocational training and state and county costs
saved by deterring participants in the program from being committed
to the state prison.
1210.10. If any court renders a decision that would have the
effect of requiring all counties to participate in the Intensive
Intervention Partnership Act programming or if any legislation,
regulation, or rule is enacted that has the effect of penalizing
counties that do not participate in the program established by this
chapter, this chapter shall become inoperative.
1210.11. (a) Any county that participates in the program shall
have no obligation to continue services for offenders if the state
discontinues funding for the program.
(b) Any county that participates in the program may reduce the
services provided in accordance with any reduction in state funding.
1210.12. This chapter shall remain in effect until January 1,
2006, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, which is enacted before January 1, 2006, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 4. Section 3060.8 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
3060.8. (a) Subject to the appropriation of funding, and as
provided in the Budget Act of 1998, and subsequent budget acts, the
Department of Corrections shall establish, operate, and evaluate
pilot projects in two or more locations within the state parole
system as determined by the Director of the Department of Corrections
for the purpose of determining whether a revised approach to the
supervision, sanction, and control of parolees can result in a more
cost-effective deployment of parole staff, reduced recidivism by
parole violators, savings on state incarceration costs, and improved
public safety. To the extent that it is feasible and practical, the
pilot projects shall include, but not be limited to, the following
elements:
(1) A task-structured parole supervision model that will test the
assignment of some parole agent activities according to functional
specialties, the organization of parole units into supervision teams,
the assignment of workload on the basis of task-specific time lines
in place of the existing caseload point system, and the assignment of
Parole Service Associates and other nonparole agent staff for
certain functions, and that will implement other changes in the
parole supervision operations. The purpose of the parole model is to
increase the total number of contacts between parolees and parole
staff while concentrating staff resources on those parolees deemed to
pose the highest risk to public safety.
(2) This model may include the imposition of graduated
intermediate sanctions of parole violators that will, for an
appropriate group of parolees, test the approach of using programs
such as day-reporting centers, substance abuse treatment units,
community service, and other punishment options as an alternative to
revocation of parole and return to prison of parole violators. The
purpose of the new graduated intermediate sanctions model is to
ensure a rapid and certain response to parole violations, or to
parolee behavior that indicates a risk of parole violations, by using
the least restrictive alternative that will ensure public safety.
(3) The establishment and operation of nonresidential day
reporting centers that will assist parolees in their reintegration
into society, maximize the supervision of certain parolees who
require closer supervision, and provide an additional punishment
option for parole violators when such a punishment is deemed
appropriate and will ensure public safety. Notwithstanding any other
law, the Department of Corrections is authorized to contract with
one or more vendors to supervise, treat, and provide services to
parolees assigned to the day reporting center, including, but not
limited to, such services as substance abuse treatment, cognitive
skill training, domestic violence prevent education and treatment,
anger management, parenting skills, community service programs, and
educational and employment services.
(b) To the extent that it is feasible and practical, the
Department of Corrections shall incorporate into the pilot projects a
test of a new parole classification system and the parole staffing
model that are developed in accordance with Provision 14 of Item
5240-001-0001 of the Budget Act of 1996 and Item 4 of Item
5240-001-0001 of the Supplemental Report of the Budget Act of 1996.
(c) The Department of Corrections shall coordinate and consult
with the parole authority during the development and subsequent
operation of the pilot projects, and in particular shall be consulted
by the department on an ongoing basis in regard to (1) the
development and implementation of graduated integrated sanctions for
parole violators and (2) the evaluation of the results of the pilot
projects.
(d) The Department of Corrections shall, by December 1, 2002,
submit to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the fiscal
committees of both houses of the Legislature a report that evaluates
the overall cost effectiveness and performance of the pilot projects.
The department shall provide to the same legislative committees
interim reports on the progress toward implementation of the pilot
projects, and any initial findings regarding their cost effectiveness
and performance, by December 1 of 2000, 2001, and 2002. The final
evaluation report shall be prepared in consultation with an
independent contractor with expertise in the evaluation of criminal
justice programs and shall include, but not be limited to, the
following items:
(1) To the extent feasible and practical, a statistically valid
analysis of the impact of the pilot projects upon the recidivism rate
of parolees within the parole units selected, with a comparison to
appropriate and similar parole units that did not participate in the
pilot projects. To the extent feasible and practical, measures of
recidivism should include revocations and removals from parole as
well as new law violations by parolees, and shall include an
examination of the frequency and severity of parole violations and
new law violations. The report shall estimate the net additional
cost or savings to the state, including the costs of operating the
program except for evaluation costs, and incarceration costs for
parole violators and parolees recommitted to prison by the courts,
which resulted from the operation of the pilot projects.
(2) An assessment of how implementation of the pilot projects has
affected the number and the nature of contacts between parole unit
staff and parolees generally and for specific groups of parolees
according to their parole classification. The report shall also
describe and assess the graduated intermediate sanctions that were
implemented, the number of parolees subjected to these sanctions, and
whether the sanctions were implemented consistently and
appropriately.
(3) An assessment of how implementation of the pilot projects have
affected parole unit operations. The report shall assess the cost
effectiveness of assigning Parole Service Associates and other
nonparole agent staff to certain functions and the cost effectiveness
of assignment of parole supervision functions to specialists
operating in teams and examine, in particular, whether funding and
staffing for parole operations could be reduced or would need to be
augmented if the task-structured parole supervision model were
implemented on a statewide basis. The report shall assess the impact
of the pilot projects upon the morale and stability of the parole
unit staff, and shall review what impact if any the pilot projects
have had on staff vacancies and turnover rates in the participating
parole units.
(4) An assessment of the performance and cost effectiveness of
providing services to parolees through the use of day reporting
centers. The report shall describe and assess the functions and
services provided at the centers, the number of parolees receiving
particular types of services, and the effect of those services on the
employment, educational levels, and recidivism of parolees assigned
to the day reporting centers. as the State-Local
Corrections Partnership Act of 2000.
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) The state prison population on June 30, 1998, was 158,207
compared to 72,121 on June 30, 1988, an annual compounded growth of
8.2 percent.
(2) Without some significant change in this growth, or alternative
sentencing programs, the state will be forced to spend billions of
dollars in new state prison construction.
(3) The practice of the imprisonment of new commitments and parole
violators in the state prison who serve one year or less offers
little opportunity to implement strategies to manage offender
behavior and to sustain long-term behavior change that would promote
public safety.
(4) The 24-member Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population
Management, including the 13 members appointed by the Governor,
unanimously agreed in its final report that "... insufficient
prevention efforts, intermediate sanctions, and programs for those
incarcerated exist, and as a result, there are offenders incarcerated
and on probation who judges and parole authorities would, and
should, manage differently if those sanctions were available."
(5) The commission found that certain individuals with no history
of violence and noncareer offenders are likely target populations for
punishment options other than prison.
(6) The commission recommended intensive probation supervision,
residential and nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs,
and other community-based punishment options as alternatives to
state prison for minor parole
violators and nonviolent offenders facing short prison commitments.
(7) Intensive correctional supervision programs have reduced
recidivism and prison overcrowding in other states which have adopted
similar programs.
(8) State and local corrections should be viewed as an
interconnected system that provides an array of appropriate
punishment alternatives, including intermediate punishment options.
(9) A strategy of realigning juvenile and adult justice
responsibilities of state and local correctional systems in a manner
that maintains public safety, increases accountability, and reduces
costs is needed.
(10) It is the intent of the Legislature that local government be
given the opportunity to participate in a state-local partnership to
house specified populations of the state prison. A dedicated revenue
source equal to state savings shall be provided to participating
local governments as a part of this transaction.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to endorse the commission'
s findings as to the need for community-based intermediate sanctions
and to implement a program of intensive correctional supervision,
drug testing and treatment, intermediate punishment options, and
mandatory educational and employment programs.
SEC. 3. Chapter 1.3 (commencing with Section 1210) is added to
Title 8 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, to read:
CHAPTER 9. STATE-LOCAL CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2000
1210. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
State-Local Corrections Partnership Act of 2000.
1210.1. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Board" means the Board of Corrections.
(b) "Intensive correctional supervision" means a program,
established pursuant to this chapter and administered by a county
probation department, consisting of highly structured and closely
supervised probation which emphasizes appropriate interventions,
including, but not limited to, treatment of substance abuse,
education, counseling, employment development, payment of restitution
to crime victims, fines, and penalty assessments.
(c) "Officer" means a probation officer as listed in Section
830.5.
(d) "Offender" means a person who has been sentenced to, or
ordered to participate in, an intensive correctional supervision
program.
1210.2. For the grant programs identified in this chapter, the
board shall establish minimum requirements, funding schedules, and
procedures on or before September 30, 2001, that take into
consideration, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Intensive supervision teams, consisting of at least two
officers, who shall supervise no more than 40 offenders at one time.
(b) Close supervision and observation of offenders being
supervised, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Face-to-face contact between an officer and the offender at
least two times per week.
(2) Frequent chemical testing for the use of alcohol, controlled
substances, or both, where their use has been prohibited as a
condition of participation in the program.
(3) At least weekly contact by an officer and the offender's
employer, educational institution, treatment program, or counselor.
(c) State licensed inpatient and outpatient treatment programs for
alcohol and drug abuse which shall be ordered when appropriate and
made available as needed for any offender with substance abuse
problems.
(d) Job training, placement, education programs, or any
combination of these, which shall be mandatory for any offender who
is not employed full time or is not a full-time student and is
medically capable of participating in the programs.
(e) A requirement that each offender be occupied five days each
week, with employment, education, a job search, job training,
community service, counseling, treatment, or a combination of these
activities, as directed by an officer, until gainfully employed,
except where this is not possible because of documented mental or
physical health constraints. An offender who is gainfully employed
shall continue to receive counseling or treatment or both if an
officer determines that the offender requires the continuation of
those activities in order to successfully perform in the program.
(f) A case management approach utilizing a community corrections
advisory committee appointed by the Chief Probation Officer and
consisting of appropriate representatives, including, but not limited
to, those from probation, local law enforcement, substance abuse
counseling, medical, mental health, employment development, and
education. The community corrections advisory committee shall work
with intensive supervision teams and assess and address the needs of
each offender.
1210.3. An intensive correctional supervision program may also
include any or all of the following:
(a) House arrest.
(b) Electronic monitoring.
(c) Community service.
(d) A probation treatment program involving restitution to the
victim, and the payment of fines and penalty assessments, by the
offender.
(e) Placement in a substance abuse community correctional center,
if available.
1210.4. (a) An offender who has been convicted of a felony or
felonies may be sentenced by a court to a county probation intensive
correctional supervision program if he or she meets all of the
following criteria:
(1) The present offense is for a crime punishable by 16 months,
two or three years, or one, two, or three years in the state prison,
or for an attempt to commit such a crime, which did not involve
violence against the person of another, molestation of a minor, or
drug trafficking.
(2) The offender has not been convicted of a violent felony, as
defined by subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, or a serious felony, as
defined by subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or convicted of
violating any of the following provisions:
Section 69 or 191.5, subdivision (b) or paragraph (1) or (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 192, subdivision (a) of Section 217.1,
Section 243, 243.1, or 243.3, subdivision (a) or (c) of Section
243.4, Section 244, 245, 245.3, 246, 266f, 266h, or 273.5,
subdivision (a) of Section 273a, Section 273d or 285, subdivision (b)
of Section 286, Section 288a, subdivisions (b), (h), or (i) of
Section 289, subdivision (b) of Section 311.2, subdivision (c) of
Section 311.4, or Section 314, 417.6, 647.6, 4131.5, or 4501.5 of the
Penal Code, or Section 2800.2 or 20001 or subdivision (b) of Section
23104 of the Vehicle Code.
(3) The offender has not been placed on probation or ordered to
serve time in a county jail as a condition of probation within the
previous five years.
(4) The offender does not have a significant criminal history
which would render him or her unsuitable for the program.
(5) It appears from all information available that the offender
would benefit from, and that public safety would not be threatened
by, sentencing the offender to an intensive correctional supervision
program. Public safety and offender accountability shall be the
primary consideration.
(6) The offender agrees in writing to the terms and conditions of
intensive correctional supervision.
(7) The offender otherwise would have been committed to the state
prison for two years or less. For the purpose of this chapter, the
term "committed to the state prison for two years or less" refers to
the length of the prison sentence.
(b) In any case in which an offender may be eligible for a county
probation intensive correctional supervision program, the probation
officer shall, as part of his or her investigation pursuant to
Section 1203, make an investigation of the offender's eligibility and
suitability for intensive correctional supervision. The probation
officer shall consider (1) the criteria contained in this chapter,
(2) whether or not the defendant would benefit from education,
treatment, and rehabilitation, and (3) whether or not the offender
would pose a threat to public safety if sentenced to intensive
correctional supervision. The probation officer shall include this
information in his or her recommendation to the court.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
that offenders who have substance abuse problems be given priority in
participating in the program.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the
ability or obligation of a court to impose confinement in a county
jail or a community correctional facility as a condition of probation
before an offender is sentenced to the intensive correctional
supervision program.
(e) In sentencing a person to intensive correctional supervision,
a court shall impose terms and conditions consistent with the
requirements of this chapter and shall, as an additional condition,
require the offender to waive any right to a hearing to contest
imposition by a probation officer of the intermediate sanctions
specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1210.9. The court may also
impose additional terms and conditions as provided for by law for
persons placed on probation or given a conditional sentence under
Section 1203.
(f) An offender may be sentenced to intensive correctional
supervision pursuant to this chapter for a period of up to nine
months. After completion of intensive correctional supervision, the
offender shall be placed on supervised probation for up to four
years.
(g) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit an
offender's right to petition for termination of a period of probation
under Section 1203.3 or to seek dismissal of the accusations or
information under Section 1203.4. However, an offender may exercise
his or her rights under these sections only upon successful
completion of intensive correctional supervision.
(h) Offenders sentenced pursuant to this section shall be deemed
to have served a prior state prison term for purposes of this code.
(i) The chief probation officer of each county shall be
responsible for the county probation intensive correctional
supervision program and for coordinating and contracting for all
related services.
(j) This section shall not apply to a person committed to the
Department of Corrections on or before January 1, 2001.
1210.5. (a) Funding for this chapter shall be provided from the
amount appropriated in Item 5430-____-____ of the Budget Act of 1999.
Up to 5 percent of the amount appropriated in Item 5430-____-____
of the Budget Act of 1999 shall be transferred, upon the approval of
the Director of Finance, to Item 5430-____-____ for expenditure as
necessary for the board to administer this program, including
providing technical assistance to counties and developing and
monitoring an evaluation component with participating counties. From
these funds, the board shall award funds for intensive supervision
probation programs operated by the county probation department for
persons who would otherwise be sentenced to the state prison, and
alcohol and substance abuse testing and treatment, education,
employment assistance, mental health counseling for persons in these
programs. Funds may also be used for the purpose specified in
Section 1210.4 for persons in these programs, and related evaluation.
(b) Each participating county shall execute a contract with the
board that will include, but not be limited to, the following
conditions:
(1) On or before October 1 of each year, beginning in 2000, each
county shall adopt an intensive Correction Supervision Plan and
budget for the following fiscal year and shall submit the plan and
budget to the board in accordance with procedures specified by the
board.
(2) For the 2001-02 fiscal year, each county shall submit a plan
and budget on or before December 31, 2000.
(3) Funds shall be allocated to counties for each person sentenced
to the intensive correctional supervision program who would
otherwise have been sentenced to the state prison. The funding for
each offender shall be prorated to reflect the amount of time
actually served by the offender in the intensive correctional
supervision program.
(4) Each county probation department shall maintain a separate
fund account in order to identify the funds and clearly show the
manner of their disposition. These funds shall be used by county
probation departments only for intensive correctional supervision and
to contract for services to offenders, as authorized by this
chapter.
(5) Commencing in the 2003-04 fiscal year, the distribution of
funds pursuant to this chapter shall be made on a quarterly basis in
accordance with minimum requirements, funding schedules, procedures,
or guidelines adopted by the board.
(6) Each county probation department shall provide reports of
expenditures and other relevant information, as deemed appropriate,
in the manner and form prescribed by the board.
(c) Allocation of funds shall be made upon application by each
participating county to the board and shall be available for two
fiscal years subsequent to the fiscal year in which the original
appropriation was made.
(d) (1) Allocation of the amount determined in paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) shall be made to a participating county upon
submission of a plan and budget, as required by paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subdivision (b), and upon application for funds by the county
to the board, based upon criteria to be developed by the department
in conjunction with the counties.
(2) The criteria shall provide for reports of expenditures and
information and shall constitute a contractual obligation.
(e) Unexpended funds may be reallocated by the board.
(f) The board shall monitor the expenditures of funds of a
participating county to determine whether the funds are being
expended in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The
board shall also establish requirements for the evaluation of
programs supported by this chapter, including requirements designed
to demonstrate the effectiveness of these programs in reducing state
prison crowding.
(g) If the board finds that a participating county is not acting
in accordance with all of the requirements of this chapter and the
contract with the board, it shall notify the county regarding the
noncompliance, and the county shall have 60 days to explain or
justify its action in writing to the board. If the noncompliance
cannot be promptly remedied, the board may issue a notice of
noncompliance and may suspend payment of any funds due the county
under this chapter and as described in the contract.
(h) Commencing in the 2002-03 fiscal year, the distribution of
funds pursuant to this chapter shall be made on a quarterly basis in
accordance with regulations adopted by the department.
1210.6. Each intensive correctional supervision team shall
periodically review and evaluate the needs of each offender and his
or her performance in the program. The team may modify the level of
supervision of an offender, including transferring him or her to
regular probation supervision.
1210.7. (a) If it is determined after a hearing by the court that
an offender in an intensive correctional supervision program has
committed an additional public offense or has otherwise violated a
condition of probation, the court may revoke intensive correctional
supervision and order any disposition authorized by law, including
remanding the offender to the state prison for the full term of the
offense for which he or she was committed.
(b) As an additional intermediate sanction a court may order an
offender to serve up to 30 days in the county jail. Time served in
the county jail shall not be considered to be a part of the
prescribed period of intensive community corrections.
1210.8. County probation departments are authorized to use funds
to contract as necessary for substance abuse treatment, employment
and education assistance, mental health counseling, and other
necessary services as provided for in this chapter. Priority shall
be given to utilizing available and appropriate public agency
services. Custody in secure facilities shall be provided by sworn
peace officers or correctional officers as defined by state law.
1210.9. The board shall evaluate the intensive correctional
supervision programs established pursuant to this chapter and report
the conclusions of its evaluation to the Legislature by January 1,
2007. The evaluation shall include an analysis of the effectiveness
of these programs in reducing prison crowding, recidivism, substance
abuse, and state and county corrections costs. The board shall pay
for any evaluation performed under this section.
1210.10. If any court renders a decision that would have the
effect of requiring all counties to participate in the state-local
corrections partnership program or if any legislation, regulation, or
rule is enacted that has the effect of penalizing counties that do
not participate in the program established by this chapter, this
chapter shall become inoperative.
1210.11. (a) Any county that participates in the program shall
have no obligation to continue services for offenders if the state
discontinues funding for the program.
(b) Any county that participates in the program may reduce the
services provided correspondingly with any reduction in state
funding, pursuant to a plan which has been approved by the board.
1210.12. This chapter shall remain in effect until January 1,
2008, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, which is enacted before January 1, 2008, deletes or extends
that date.