BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair A
1999-2000 Regular Session B
1
2
5
AB 1255 (Wright) 5
As Amended June 28, 1999
Hearing date: June 29, 1999
Penal Code and Uncodified Law
RC:br
YOUNG ADULT OFFENDER INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROJECT ACT OF
2000
HISTORY
Source: Sponsor: Chief Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation: SB 1699 (Schiff) 1997-1997, held in
Senate Appropriations
Support: California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; California State Sheriffs'
Association; Little Hoover Commission; Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors; County of
San Mateo Probation Department; California
Catholic Conference; Shasta County Board of
Supervisors; American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Los Angeles
County Probation Officers Union
Opposition:County of Fresno
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 80 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 2
SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATE $6,180,000 TO THE BOARD
OF CORRECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE YOUNG
ADULT OFFENDER INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROJECT ACT OF 2000?
SHOULD THE YOUNG ADULT OFFENDER INTENSIVE SUPERVISION
PROJECT ACT OF 2000 BE LIMITED TO THE COUNTIES OF LOS
ANGELES, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN DIEGO AND SHASTA?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to establish the Young Adult
Offender Intensive Supervision Project Act of 2000 within
the Board of Corrections, and to allocate $6,180,000 for
that purpose, as specified in this bill.
Existing law defines probation as the suspension of the
imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of
conditional and revocable release in the community under
the supervision of a probation officer. Typically, felony
probation involves a period of jail incarceration as a
condition of probation, along with other relevant
conditions. (Penal Code section 1203)
Existing law declares that the provision of probation
services is an essential element in the administration of
criminal justice. The safety of the public, which shall be
a primary goal through enforcement of court-ordered
conditions of probation; the nature of the offense; the
interests of justice, including punishment, reintegration
of the offender into the community, and enforcement of
conditions of probation; the loss to the victim; and the
needs of the defendant shall be the primary considerations
in the granting of probation. (Penal Code section 1202.7)
Existing law provides that persons placed on probation by a
court shall be under the supervision of the county
probation officer who shall determine both the level and
type of supervision consistent with the court-ordered
conditions of probation. (Penal Code section 1202.8)
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 3
Existing law establishes the Community-Based Punishment Act
of 1994. That Act is administered by the Board of
Corrections and is designed to establish an option for a
county or counties to establish a continuum of sanctions
for targeted nonviolent offenders who are otherwise
prison-bound and jail-bound. "Intermediate punishments"
may be provided by ". . . correctional agencies directly
or through community-based public or private correctional
service providers." (Penal Code sections 8050 - 8093)
This bill establishes, within the Board of Corrections, the
Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision Probation
Project Act of 2000.
This bill designates the counties of Los Angeles, San
Francisco, San Diego, and Shasta to participate in the
Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision Probation
Project Act of 2000.
This bill requires that participating counties provide the
Board of Corrections with specific outcome and performance
measures that will allow the Board to evaluate the efficacy
of the project, as specified.
This bill provides that the Board of Corrections will award
grants to the designated counties, as specified in this
bill, if they make available resources in an amount equal
to at least 15 percent of the amount of the grant.
This bill appropriates $6,180,000 from the General Fund for
the purposes of this bill and states legislative intent to
fund the program in the Annual Budget Act for the remainder
of the program.
This bill designates fixed dollar amounts to be distributed
to counties, as specified.
This bill has a sunset date of January 1, 2004, unless a
later enacted statute that is enacted before January 1,
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 4
2004, deletes or extends that date.
This bill makes several legislative findings and
declarations.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the sponsor:
Intensive supervision probation has proven in studies
to be an effective way of reducing recidivism and
helping offenders get the services and training they
need to stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, with
California's jails being in a state of overcrowding
and most probation departments on caseloads over 1 to
200, intensive supervision probation has not been a
reality in California.
The counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco
and Shasta were chosen by the association to be the
test counties in California based on their unique
demographics of young adult offenders on probation and
the viability of their programs.
The other 54 counties in the state will be closely
monitoring the success of these four programs with an
eye toward expanding intensive supervision probation
services to other jurisdictions should the hypothesis
prove correct.
2. Defining the Target Population
The Young Adult Offender Intensive Supervision Project Act
of 2000 focuses on probationers, between the ages of 18 and
25, who have been ordered to participate in an intensive
intervention program. This bill states legislative intent
that offenders who have substance abuse problems be given
priority in participating.
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 5
The chief probation officer of each county is responsible
for recommending offenders to participate in this program.
IS THIS TOO BROAD OF A TARGET GROUP? SHOULD A HIGH-RISK
SUB-GROUP BE IDENTIFIED AND TARGETED FOR COMPARATIVE
EVALUATION PURPOSES?
SINCE PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO OFFENDERS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE
PROBLEMS, SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO FOCUS ONLY ON THIS
PARTICULAR GROUP OF OFFENDERS?
3. Mandatory Components of the Young Adult Offender
Intensive Supervision Project
Participating counties are required to maintain a caseload
ratio not to exceed 1 officer to 50 offenders, as well as
include the following components in the administration of
this project:
a) Weekly contacts between an officer and the
offender.
b) Frequent chemical testing for the use of alcohol,
controlled substances, or both, where the use of any
of these has been prohibited as a condition of
participation in the program, or by order of the
court.
c) At least weekly contact by an officer and the
offender's employer, educational institution,
treatment program or counselor.
d) Availability for referral to state-licensed
inpatient and outpatient treatment programs for
alcohol and drug abuse when appropriate.
e) 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
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 6
full-time student and is medically capable of
participating in the programs.
f) 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 it is
determined by an appropriate professional that the
offender requires the continuation of those
activities, in order to successfully complete the
program.
4. Optional Components of the Young Adult Offender
Intensive Supervision Project
Participating counties may also include 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 repayment of fines
and penalty assessments, by the offender.
f) Placement in a substance abuse community
correctional center if available.
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 7
Community service (d) is already listed as a mandatory
component of the Project.
SHOULD COMMUNITY SERVICE BE DELETED FROM THIS PROVISION OF
THE BILL SINCE IT IS INCLUDED UNDER THE MANDATORY COMPONENT
SECTION OF THE INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROJECT?
5. Evaluation of the Project
Participating counties are responsible for providing the
Board of Corrections with specific outcome and performance
measures for annual reporting that will allow the Board to
evaluate, at a minimum, the effectiveness of the project in
reducing the following:
a) Recidivism among offenders.
b) Criminal justice costs related to offenders.
c) Caseload ratios for offenders.
d) Unemployment and low literacy levels of offenders.
In addition, the Board, after consulting with each
participating county regarding the above criteria, the
Board shall create an evaluation design for young adult
offender supervision probation pilot programs that will
assess 1) the effectiveness of each program in reducing the
number of state prison commitments from the target category
of offenders and 2) the state savings associated with those
reductions.
Each evaluation submitted by the Board shall include, at a
minimum, an analysis of the effectiveness of the program
in:
a) reducing recidivism
b) substance abuse prevention
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 8
c) increasing job placement
The report shall also include any similar research or
national studies that address the benefits of intensive
supervision probation or parole programs.
The Board is required to submit the first annual report on
June 30, 2001, and annually thereafter, with a final report
due on July 1, 2004.
6. Designated Counties: Use of State Funds
This bill would appropriate from the General Fund, the
following amounts to the following counties:
County of Los Angeles??..???..$2,300,000
City and County of San Francisco?...$1,600,000
County of San Diego??????...$1,600,000
County of Shasta????????..$500,000
The author and/or the Committee may wish to consider
amending this bill to provide instead for competitive
grants administered by the Board of Corrections.
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE?
In addition, the bill provides for local matching
requirements of 15% of the total grant. Generally, this
type of a grant program requires at least a 25% local match
to ensure local buy-in into the program.
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE?
7. Opposition
Opponents argue:
Fresno County urges opposition of AB 1255 (Wright)
unless amended to remove the limitation on the 6
million appropriation for implementation of Intensive
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 9
Correctional Supervision programs only in the counties
of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Shasta .
. . . Fresno County and other counties [should] have
the ability to compete for these much needed funds.
Fresno County has a large number of adult probationers
on banked caseloads or in supervision caseloads of 400
per Deputy Probation Officer. We are also in dire
need of funding to support Intensive Supervision
programs that ensure probationers' compliance with
court orders thereby enhancing public safety.
Furthermore, Fresno County has the ability to quickly
develop this type of program proposal without
additional planning grant funds.
8. Funding in This Bill
This bill is a non-urgency measure which would take effect
on January 1, 2000. This bill gives the Board of
Corrections 90 days to pay the designated counties their
share of the $6 million ($180,000 is appropriated for the
Board of Corrections). It may be unclear whether or not
the $6 million is intended to be used in the 1999-00 fiscal
year. If so, the counties would appear to be receiving $6
million for however many months remain in the 1999-00
fiscal year; that could be as little as 3 months. It may
be that the Board of Corrections could be allowed to
transmit some of that money in the 2000-01 fiscal year.
IS THE $6 MILLION IN THIS BILL INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE
1999-00 FISCAL YEAR?
IS IT ASSUMED THAT THE SAME LEVEL OF FUNDING WILL BE
APPROPRIATED EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE PROGRAM IS IN EFFECT?
9. Sunset Date
This bill is scheduled to sunset on 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
(More)
AB 1255 (Wright)
Page 10
that date.
10. Recently Amended
This bill was recently amended on June 28, 1999. The
hearing date is June 29, 1999, meaning the currently
amended version of the bill was in print one day prior to
being heard in committee.
11. AB 1112 (Wright)
When AB 1255 was amended on June 28, 1999, Section 4 of the
bill was deleted altogether and that language is in AB
1112, a budget trailer bill. AB 1112 is currently on the
Governor's desk.
***************
(More)