BILL NUMBER: AB 1255 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 28, 1999
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
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 intermediate sanctions as
alternatives to imprisonment in the state prison.
This bill would provide for the awarding of grants for the
establishment of intensive intervention
supervision programs, as specified, for which 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 appropriation in the Budget Act of
1999 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 , and would appropriate
$180,000 to the board for its administrative costs .
This bill would also require 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 the above provisions shall remain in
effect until January 1, 2006 2004 , 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as of that date are repealed.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: 2/3. Appropriation: 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 as the
Intensive Probation and Parole Intervention Partnership
Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision Probation
Project 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)
(9) Local probation departments have lacked sufficient
resources to effectively deal with an increasing offender population.
Without 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)
(10) 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)
(11) 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)
(12) 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)
(13) 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 YOUNG ADULT OFFENDER INTENSIVE SUPERVISION
PROBATION PROJECT ACT OF 2000
1210. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
Intervention Probation and Parole Partnership
Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision Probation Project
Act of 2000.
1210.1. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Intensive intervention"
"Demonstration program" 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 , as ordered by the court, 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 between the ages of 18 and 25, who is on
probation and 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 shall
include, but are not limited to, the following guidelines
standards :
(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:
(a) A significant reduction in the banked caseloads of offenders.
In no case shall caseload ratios exceed one officer to 50 offenders.
(b) Participating counties under this section shall agree to
incorporate the following components:
(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 it is determined by an
appropriate professional that the offender requires the
continuation of those activities, in order to successfully complete
the program.
(c) Participating counties shall establish baseline statistical
information which shall form the basis for comparison purposes for
evaluation of the effectiveness of these programs.
(c) Participating counties shall provide the board with specific
outcome and performance measures and a method for annual reporting,
pursuant to Section 1210.8 that will allow the Board of Corrections
to evaluate, at a minimum, the effectiveness of the demonstration
project in reducing:
(1) Recidivism among offenders.
(2) Criminal justice costs related to offenders.
(3) Caseload ratios for offenders.
(4) Unemployment and low literacy levels among offenders.
(d) The Board of Corrections shall award grants to supplement,
rather than supplant, existing programs. No designated county
specified in this chapter shall be awarded a grant unless that county
makes available resources in an amount equal to at least 15 percent
of the amount of the grant. Resources may include in-kind
contributions from participating agencies.
1210.3. The demonstration programs may also include any or all of
the following:
(a) House arrest.
(b) Electronic monitoring.
(c) Biometric 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 Unless the court finds
that placement in the program would be detrimental to the offender or
to public safety, 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 at the discretion of the
chief probation officer of the county . Public safety and
offender accountability shall be the primary considerations in
determining whether placing the offender in the program is
appropriate .
(b) A probation officer or parole agent
The chief probation officer of the county 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
offenders 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
(e) The court may 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) Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision
Probation Project. These funds shall be distributed by the board to
participating counties within 90 days of the operative date of this
section. The sum of one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000)
is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the board for
administrative costs associated with the oversight and evaluation of
these programs. Funds shall be distributed to counties as follows:
(1) Two million three hundred thousand dollars ($2,300,000)
to the County of Los Angeles.
(B)
(2) One million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) to
the City and County of San Francisco.
(C)
(3) On million six hundred thousand dollars ($1,600,000) to
the County of San Diego.
(D)
(4) 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.
1210.8. The board, after consulting with each participating
county, shall create an evaluation design for young adult offender
supervision probation pilot programs that will assess the
effectiveness of each program in reducing the number of state prison
commitments from the target category of offenders and the state
savings associated with those reductions. Each evaluation shall
include, at a minimum, an analysis of the effectiveness of the
program in: reducing recidivism, substance abuse prevention, and
increasing job placements. The board shall prepare
and submit an annual report, the first to
be due on June 30, 2001, and annually thereafter, with a final report
due on July 1, 2004. The final report shall include any similar
research or national studies that address the benefits of intensive
supervision probation or parole programs.
1210.9. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2004, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2004, deletes or extends
that date.