Bill Text: CA SB678 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Chaptered
Bill Title: Criminal recidivism.
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 7-3)
Status: (Passed) 2009-10-11 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009. [SB678 Detail]
Download: California-2009-SB678-Chaptered.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 678 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 608
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 11, 2009
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 11, 2009
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 12, 2009
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 12, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 12, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 31, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 25, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 4, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 16, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Senators Leno and Benoit
(Coauthors: Senators Ducheny, Hancock, Oropeza, and Steinberg)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Arambula, Gilmore, Hagman, and Hill)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
An act to add and repeal Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1228)
of Title 8 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, relating to probation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 678, Leno. Criminal recidivism.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to oversee programs for the purposes of reducing
parolee recidivism.
This bill would authorize each county to establish a Community
Corrections Performance Incentives Fund (CCPIF) and would authorize
the state to annually allocate money into a State Corrections
Performance Incentives Fund to be used for specified purposes
relating to improving local probation supervision practices and
capacities, as specified. This bill would require the Director of
Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief
Probation Officers of California, and the Administrative Office of
the Courts, to calculate the amount of money to be appropriated from
the state fund into a CCPIF. This bill would specify that the
calculation would be based on costs avoided by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation because of a reduction in the
percentage of adult probationers sent to prison for a probation
failure, as specified. This bill would also require each county using
CCPIF funds to identify and track specific outcome-based measures,
as specified, and report to the Administrative Office of the Courts
on the effectiveness of the programs paid for by the CCPIF.
This bill would require the community corrections programs to be
developed and implemented by the chief probation officer, as advised
by a Community Corrections Partnership. This bill would require
specified local officials to serve as part of that Community
Corrections Partnership. Because this bill would increase the duties
for certain local officials, it would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009.
SEC. 2. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1228) is added to Title
8 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, to read:
CHAPTER 3. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE
INCENTIVES
1228. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) In 2007, nearly 270,000 felony offenders were subject to
probation supervision in California's communities.
(b) In 2007, out of 46,987 new admissions to state prison, nearly
20,000 were felony offenders who were committed to state prison after
failing probation supervision.
(c) Probation is a judicially imposed suspension of sentence that
attempts to supervise, treat, and rehabilitate offenders while they
remain in the community under the supervision of the probation
department. Probation is a linchpin of the criminal justice system,
closely aligned with the courts, and plays a central role in
promoting public safety in California's communities.
(d) Providing sustainable funding for improved, evidence-based
probation supervision practices and capacities will improve public
safety outcomes among adult felons who are on probation. Improving
felony probation performance, measured by a reduction in felony
probationers who are sent to prison because they were revoked on
probation or convicted of another crime while on probation, will
reduce the number of new admissions to state prison, saving taxpayer
dollars and allowing a portion of those state savings to be
redirected to probation for investing in community corrections
programs.
1229. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Community corrections" means the placement of persons
convicted of a felony offense under probation supervision, with
conditions imposed by a court for a specified period.
(b) "Chief probation officer" means the chief probation officer
for the county or city and county in which an adult offender is
subject to probation for the conviction of a felony offense.
(c) "Community corrections program" means a program established
pursuant to this act consisting of a system of felony probation
supervision services dedicated to all of the following goals:
(1) Enhancing public safety through the management and reduction
of offender risk while under felony probation supervision and upon
reentry from jail into the community.
(2) Providing a range of probation supervision tools, sanctions,
and services applied to felony probationers based on a risk/needs
assessment for the purpose of reducing criminal conduct and promoting
behavioral change that results in reducing recidivism and promoting
the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.
(3) Maximizing offender restitution, reconciliation, and
restorative services to victims of crime.
(4) Holding offenders accountable for their criminal behaviors and
for successful compliance with applicable court orders and
conditions of supervision.
(5) Improving public safety outcomes for persons placed on
probation for a felony offense, as measured by their successful
completion of probation and commensurate reduction in the rate of
felony probationers sent to prison as a result of a probation
revocation or conviction of a new crime.
(d) "Evidence-based practices" refers to supervision policies,
procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific
research to reduce recidivism among individuals under probation,
parole, or postrelease supervision.
1230. (a) Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each
county treasury a Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund
(CCPIF), to receive all amounts allocated to that county for purposes
of implementing this chapter.
(b) In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be
expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys,
including any interest, shall be made available to the chief
probation officer (CPO) of that county, within 30 days of the deposit
of those moneys into the fund, for the implementation of the
community corrections program authorized by this chapter.
(1) The community corrections program shall be developed and
implemented by probation and advised by a local Community Corrections
Partnership.
(2) The local Community Corrections Partnership shall be chaired
by the chief probation officer and comprised of the following
membership:
(A) The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
designee.
(B) A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer for
the county.
(C) The district attorney.
(D) The public defender.
(E) The sheriff.
(F) A chief of police.
(G) The head of the county department of social services.
(H) The head of the county department of mental health.
(I) The head of the county department of employment.
(J) The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse programs.
(K) The head of the county office of education.
(L) A representative from a community-based organization with
experience in successfully providing rehabilitative services to
persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense.
(M) An individual who represents the interests of victims.
(3) Funds allocated to probation pursuant to this act shall be
used to provide supervision and rehabilitative services for adult
felony offenders subject to probation, and shall be spent on
evidence-based community corrections practices and programs, as
defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1229, which may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
(A) Implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and needs
assessments.
(B) Implementing and expanding intermediate sanctions that
include, but are not limited to, electronic monitoring, mandatory
community service, home detention, day reporting, restorative justice
programs, work furlough programs, and incarceration in county jail
for up to 90 days.
(C) Providing more intensive probation supervision.
(D) Expanding the availability of evidence-based rehabilitation
programs including, but not limited to, drug and alcohol treatment,
mental health treatment, anger management, cognitive behavior
programs, and job training and employment services.
(E) Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation and supervision
programs and ensuring program fidelity.
(4) The chief probation officer shall have discretion to spend
funds on any of the above practices and programs consistent with this
act but, at a minimum, shall devote at least 5 percent of all
funding received to evaluate the effectiveness of those programs and
practices implemented with the funds provided pursuant to this
chapter. A chief probation officer may petition the Administrative
Office of the Courts to have this restriction waived, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts shall have the authority to grant
such a petition, if the CPO can demonstrate that the department is
already devoting sufficient funds to the evaluation of these programs
and practices.
(5) Each probation department receiving funds under this chapter
shall maintain a complete and accurate accounting of all funds
received pursuant to this chapter.
1231. (a) Community corrections programs funded pursuant to this
act shall identify and track specific outcome-based measures
consistent with the goals of this act.
(b) The Administrative Office of the Courts, in consultation with
the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall specify and define
minimum required outcome-based measures, which shall include, but not
be limited to, all of the following:
(1) The percentage of persons on felony probation who are being
supervised in accordance with evidence-based practices.
(2) The percentage of state moneys expended for programs that are
evidence-based, and a descriptive list of all programs that are
evidence-based.
(3) Specification of supervision policies, procedures, programs,
and practices that were eliminated.
(4) The percentage of persons on felony probation who successfully
complete the period of probation.
(c) Each chief probation officer receiving funding pursuant to
Sections 1233 to 1233.6, inclusive, shall provide an annual written
report to the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation evaluating the effectiveness of the
community corrections program, including, but not limited to, the
data described in subdivision (b).
(d) The Administrative Office of the Courts shall, in consultation
with the chief probation officer of each county and the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, provide a quarterly statistical
report to the Department of Finance including, but not limited to,
the following statistical information for each county:
(1) The number of felony filings.
(2) The number of felony convictions.
(3) The number of felony convictions in which the defendant was
sentenced to the state prison.
(4) The number of felony convictions in which the defendant was
granted probation.
(5) The adult felon probation population.
(6) The number of felons who had their probation revoked and were
sent to prison for that revocation.
(7) The number of adult felony probationers sent to state prison
for a conviction of a new felony offense, including when probation
was revoked or terminated.
1232. Commencing no later than 18 months following the initial
receipt of funding pursuant to this act and annually thereafter, the
Administrative Office of the Courts, in consultation with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of
Finance, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall submit
to the Governor and the Legislature a comprehensive report on the
implementation of this act. The report shall include, but not be
limited to, all of the following information:
(a) The effectiveness of the community corrections program based
on the reports of performance-based outcome measures required in
Section 1231.
(b) The percentage of felony probationers whose probation was
revoked for the year on which the report is being made.
(c) The percentage of felony probationers who were convicted of
crimes during their term of probation for the year on which the
report is being made.
(d) The impact of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this act to
enhance public safety by reducing the percentage and number of felony
probationers whose probation was revoked for the year being reported
on for probation violations or new convictions, and to reduce the
number of felony probationers who are sent to prison for the year on
which the report is being made.
(e) Any recommendations regarding resource allocations or
additional collaboration with other state, regional, federal, or
local entities for improvements to this act.
1233. (a) The Director of Finance, in consultation with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of California, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, shall calculate for each county
a baseline probation failure rate that equals the average number of
adult felony probationers sent to state prison during calendar years
2006 to 2008, inclusive, as a percentage of the average adult felony
probation population during the same period.
(b) For purposes of calculating the baseline probation failure
rate, the number of adult felony probationers sent to prison shall
include those adult felony probationers sent to state prison for a
revocation of probation, as well as adult felony probationers sent to
state prison for a conviction of a new felony offense. The
calculation shall also include adult felony probationers sent to
prison for conviction of a new crime who simultaneously have their
probation term terminated.
1233.1. After the conclusion of each calendar year following the
enactment of this section, the Director of Finance, in consultation
with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall
calculate the following for that calendar year:
(a) The cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise
on parole a probationer sent to prison. This calculation shall take
into consideration factors, including, but not limited to, the
average length of stay in prison and on parole for probationers, as
well as the associated parole revocation rates, and revocation costs.
(b) The statewide probation failure rate. The statewide probation
failure rate shall be calculated as the total number of adult felony
probationers statewide sent to prison in the previous year as a
percentage of the statewide adult felony probation population as of
June 30 of that year.
(c) A probation failure rate for each county. Each county's
probation failure rate shall be calculated as the number of adult
felony probationers sent to prison from that county in the previous
year as a percentage of the county's adult felony probation
population as of June 30 of that year.
(d) An estimate of the number of adult felony probationers each
county successfully prevented from being sent to prison. For each
county, this estimate shall be calculated based on the reduction in
the county's probation failure rate as calculated annually pursuant
to subdivision (c) of this section and the county's baseline
probation failure rate as calculated pursuant to Section 1233. In
making this estimate, the Director of Finance, in consultation with
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall adjust
the calculations to account for changes in each county's adult
felony probation caseload in the most recent completed calendar year
as compared to the county's adult felony probation population during
the period 2006 to 2008, inclusive.
(e) In calculating probation failure rates for the state and
individual counties, the number of adult felony probationers sent to
prison shall include those adult felony probationers sent to state
prison for a revocation of probation, as well as adult felony
probationers sent to state prison for a conviction of a new felony
offense. The calculation shall also include adult felony probationers
who are sent to prison for conviction of a new crime and who
simultaneously have their probation terms terminated.
1233.2. Annually, after the conclusion of each calendar year, the
Director of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of California, and the
Administrative Office of the Courts, shall identify the appropriate
Probation Revocation Tier for each county for which it was estimated
that the county successfully prevented any number of adult felony
probationers from being sent to state prison, as provided in
subdivision (d) of Section 1233.1. The tiers shall be defined as
follows:
(a) Tier 1. A Tier 1 county is one which has a probation failure
rate, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1233.1, that is no
more than 25 percent higher than the statewide probation failure
rate, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1233.1.
(b) Tier 2. A Tier 2 county is one which has a probation failure
rate, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1233.1, that is more
than 25 percent above the statewide probation failure rate, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1233.1.
1233.3. Annually, the Director of Finance, in consultation with
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall
calculate a probation failure reduction incentive payment for each
eligible county, pursuant to Section 1233.2, for the most recently
completed calendar year, as follows:
(a) For a county identified as being in Tier 1, as defined in
subdivision (a) of Section 1233.2, its probation failure reduction
incentive payment shall equal the estimated number of probationers
successfully prevented from being sent to prison, as defined by
subdivision (d) of Section 1233.1, multiplied by 45 percent of the
costs to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole a
probationer who was sent to prison, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 1233.1.
(b) For a county identified as being in Tier 2, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 1233.2, its probation failure reduction
incentive payment shall equal the estimated number of probationers
successfully prevented from being sent to prison, as defined by
subdivision (d) of Section 1233.1, multiplied by 40 percent of the
costs to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole a
probationer who was sent to prison, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 1233.1.
1233.4. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature for counties
demonstrating high success rates with adult felony probationers to
have access to performance-based funding as provided for in this
section.
(b) On an annual basis, the Department of Finance, in consultation
with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall
calculate 5 percent of the savings to the state attributed to those
counties that successfully reduce the number of adult felony
probationers sent to state prison.
(c) The savings estimated pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be
used to provide high performance grants to county probation
departments for the purpose of bolstering evidence-based probation
practices designed to reduce recidivism among adult felony
probationers.
(d) County probation departments eligible for these high
performance grants shall be those with adult probation failure rates
more than 50 percent below the statewide average in the most recently
completed calendar year.
(e) A county probation department may receive a high performance
grant under this section in a year in which it does not also receive
a probation failure reduction incentive payment as provided for in
Section 1233.3. The CPO of a county that qualifies for both a high
performance grant and a probation failure reduction incentive payment
shall indicate to the Administrative Office of the Courts, by a date
designated by the Administrative Office of the Courts, whether the
CPO chooses to receive the high performance grant or probation
failure reduction payment.
(f) The grants provided for in this section shall be administered
by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The Administrative Office
of the Courts shall seek to ensure that all qualifying probation
departments that submit qualifying applications receive a
proportionate share of the grant funding available based on the
population of adults ages 18 to 25, inclusive, in each of the
counties receiving the grants.
1233.5. If data of sufficient quality and of the types required
for the implementation of this act are not available to the Director
of Finance, then the Director of Finance, in consultation with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Joint Legislative
Budget Committee, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall
use the best available data to estimate probation failure reduction
incentive payments and high performance grants utilizing a
methodology that is as consistent with that described in this act as
is reasonably possible.
1233.6. (a) Probation failure reduction incentive payments and
high performance grants calculated for any calendar year shall be
provided to counties in the following fiscal year. The total annual
payment to each county shall be divided into four equal quarterly
payments.
(b) The Department of Finance shall include an estimate of the
total probation failure reduction incentive payments and high
performance grants to be provided to counties in the coming fiscal
year as part of the Governor's proposed budget released no later than
January 10 of each year. This estimate shall be adjusted by the
Department of Finance, as necessary, to reflect the actual
calculations of probation revocation incentive payments and high
performance grants completed by the Director of Finance, in
consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the Chief Probation Officers
of California, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. This
adjustment shall occur as part of standard budget revision processes
completed by the Department of Finance in April and May of each year.
(c) There is hereby established a State Community Corrections
Performance Incentives Fund. Moneys budgeted for purposes of
providing probation revocation incentive payments and high
performance grants authorized in Sections 1230 to 1233.6, inclusive,
shall be deposited into this fund. Any moneys deposited into this
fund shall be administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts
and the share calculated for each county probation department shall
be transferred to its Community Corrections Performance Incentives
Fund authorized in Section 1230. The Legislature may allocate up to 3
percent of the funds annually deposited into the State Community
Corrections Performance Incentives Fund for use by the Administrative
Office of the Courts for the costs of administering this program.
1233.7. The moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter shall be
used to supplement, not supplant, any other state or county
appropriation for the chief probation officer or the probation
department.
1233.8. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2015, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2015, deletes or extends
that date.
SEC. 3. The Judicial Council shall consider the adoption of
appropriate modifications to the Criminal Rules of Court, and of
other judicial branch policies, procedures, and programs, affecting
felony probation services that would support implementation of the
evidence-based probation supervision practices described in this
chapter.
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of
the Government Code.
