2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212

8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212

1/20

Fbrary 22, 2012

mac Taylor

Lislativ Analyst

The 2012-13 Budget:

The 2011 Realignment of

Adult OffendersAn Update


2/20

2012-13 BudgeT

2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov


3/20

2012-13 BudgeT

www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 3

ExEcutivE SummaryIn 2011, the state enacted several bills to enact a wide-ranging realignment, shiing several

state programs and a commensurate level o revenues to local governments. Perhaps the most

signicant programmatic change implemented as part o the 2011 realignment was realigning to

county governments the responsibility or managing and supervising certain elon oenders who

previously had been eligible or state prison and parole. Tis report provides an update on the status

o realignment, reviews changes proposed by the Governor, and make several recommendations

designed to promote the long-term success o realignment. Our recommendations are summarized

below.

Create Reserve Fund or Revenue Growth to Promote Financial Flexibility. We recommend

modication o the administrations proposed realignment unding account structure. While we

nd that the proposed structure is signicantly improved over the current-year account structure, it

could be urther improved by adding a reserve account into which all unallocated revenue growth

would be deposited. Counties would have exibility to manage these resources in ways that bestmeet their local priorities while still meeting ederal program requirements where those exist.

Design Ongoing Allocation Formula to Be Responsive to Future Changes. We recommend

creating a ormula or allocating the unds dedicated to the realignment o adult oenders among

the states 58 counties in a way that would be responsive to changes in local demographics and

crime-related actors. Specically, we recommend implementingperhaps phased in over a couple

o yearsa ormula relying on two actors: (1) at-risk population ages 18 through 35 and (2) elony

dispositions. In so doing, county allocations would be adjusted to better respond to underlying

trends in population and criminal activity that can vary by county and over time.

Reject Governors Proposal or Additional Year o Funding or Community Correctional Plans

(CCPs). We recommend rejecting the administrations proposal to provide counties with a second

year o planning and training unding totaling $8.9 million. Te provision o this unding had

merit in the current year when counties had only a ew months to begin implementing realignment.

While local realignment responsibilities will increase in the budget year as more oenders come

onto county caseloads, counties will have hundreds o millions o dollars in additional realignment

revenues rom which to draw, thereby reducing the need or the state to provide General Fund

assistance.

Utilize New Board to Support Public Saety Trough echnical Assistance and Local

Accountability. We recommend that the administration report at budget hearings regarding the

responsibilities o the Board o State and Community Corrections (BSCC), a board created as parto the realignment legislation and given the mission o providing technical assistance to counties

and promoting local accountability. Despite the clear intention that BSCC play a central role in

supporting the successul implementation o realignment over the long run, the administration has

not made any proposals on how that mission will be ullled.


4/20

2012-13 BudgeT



5/20

2012-13 BudgeT


introductionIn 2011, the state enacted several bills to

realign to county governments the responsi-

bility or managing and supervising certain elon

oenders who previously had been eligible or stateprison and parole. Tis report, which is the rst

o a two-part series examining the impacts o the

2011 realignment on Caliornias criminal justice

system, ocuses on how realignment has impacted

local governments. Specically, we provide an

update on the status o that realignment which

became eective October 1, 2011, and review

several realignment-related proposals made by

the Governor as part o his 2012-13 budget plan.Finally, we oer several recommendations related

to those proposals, as well as other recommenda-

tions designed to better ensure the long-term

success o the realignment o adult oenders.

thE 2011 rEalignmEntSeveral times over the last 20 years, the state

has sought signicant policy improvements by

reviewing state and local government programs

and realigning responsibilities to a level o

government more likely to achieve good outcomes.

As part o the 2011-12 budget package, the state

enacted such a reorm by realigning unding and

responsibility or adult oenders and parolees,

court security, various public saety grants, mental

health services, substance abuse treatment, child

welare programs, adult protective services, andCaliornia Work Opportunity and Responsibility to

Kids (CalWORKs) to counties along with unding

to support these programs. We discuss this major

shi o responsibility in greater detail below.

reees Se l gees

o nance the new responsibilities shied

to local governments, the 2011 realignment plan

reallocated $5.6 billion o state sales tax and state

and local vehicle license ee (VLF) revenues in

2011-12. Specically, the Legislature approved

the diversion o 1.0625 cents o the states

sales tax rate to counties. Te administration

projects this diversion o sales tax revenues to

generate $5.1 billion or realignment in 2011-12,

growing to $6.2 billion in 2014-15. In addition,

the realignment plan redirects an estimated$462 million rom the base 0.65 percent VLF rate

or local law enorcement grant programs. Finally,

the realignment plan shied $763 million on a

one-time basis in 2011-12 rom the Mental Health

Services Fund (established by Proposition 63 in

November 2004) or support o two mental health

programs included in the realignment. Figure 1

illustrates how the total revenue allocated or

realignment is projected by the administration to

grow over the next several years.Te revenues provided or realignment are

deposited into a new und, the Local Revenue

Fund 2011, which includes 8 separate accounts

and 13 subaccounts to pay or the realigned

programs (see Figure 2, next page). For 2011-12

only, the realignment legislation established

Figure 1

Revenues for Realignment(In Millions)

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Sales tax $5,107 $5,320 $5,748 $6,228

VLF 462 496 492 492

Proposition 63 763

Revenues $6,332 $5,816 $6,240 $6,720

VLF = vehicle license fee.


6/20

2012-13 BudgeT


various ormulas to determine how much revenue

is deposited into each account and subaccount. Te

legislation also contains some ormulas and general

direction to determine how the unding is allocated

among local governments. In addition, the legis-

lation limits the use o unds deposited into eachaccount and subaccount to the specic program-

matic purpose o the account or subaccount, with

no provisions allowing local governments exibility

to shi unds among programs.

P respsbes Se

F Se l gee

Te realignment package includes $6.3 billionin realignment revenues in 2011-12 or court

security, adult oenders and parolees, public saety

District

Attorney &

Public

Defender

Health and Human Services

Juvenile

Justice

Reserve

Mental

Health

Trial

Court

Security

Local Law

Enforcement

Services

Local

Community

Corrections

Mental Health

Youthful Offender

Block Grant

Juvenile

Reentry Grant

Adult

Protective

Services

Child

Welfare

AdoptionsFoster Care

Assistance

Child

Abuse

Prevention

Foster Care

Administration

WCRTSb

Drug

Court

Non-Drug

Medi-Cal

Drug

Medi-Cal

Account

Subaccount

Adoptions

Assistance

Program

Local Revenue Fund 20112011-12 Sales Tax Revenues: $5.1 Billion

2011-12 Vehicle License Fee Revenues: $453 Million

Funds

12 Distinct

Grant

Programs

Undistributed

Account

(Reimbursements

for State Costs)

Mental

Health

Subaccount

CalWORKs

Maintenance

of Effort

Subaccount

1991 Realignment

aThe one-time transfer of $763 million from the Mental Health Services Account (Proposition 63) is not shown here.

bWomen and Childrens Residential Treatment Services.

Account Structure of the Local Revenue Fund 2011a

Figure 2


7/20

2012-13 BudgeT


grants, mental health services, substance abuse

treatment, child welare programs, adult protective

services, and CalWORKs. Figure 3 lists each o

the realigned programs, as well as the Governors

projected level o unding provided to the counties

or the transerred program responsibilities overthe next several years.

Shi o Adult Oenders the Most Signifcant

Policy Change o Realignment. Te most signicant

policy change created by the 2011 realignment is

the shi o responsibility or adult oenders and

parolees rom the state to the counties. Tis shi can

be divided into three distinct parts: the shi o lower

level oenders, the shi o parolees, and the shi o

parole violators. We discuss each in detail below.

Lower Level Offenders. Te 2011

realignment limited which elons can be

sent to state prison, thereby requiring

that more elons be managed by counties.

Specically, sentences to state prison are

now limited to registered sex oenders,

individuals with a current or prior serious

or violent oense, and individuals who

commit certain other specied oenses.

Tus, counties are now responsible or

housing and supervising all elons who do

not meet that criteria. Te shi was done

on a prospective basis eective October 1,

2011, meaning that no inmates under state

jurisdiction prior to that date were trans-

erred to the counties. Only lower leveloenders sentenced aer that date came

under county jurisdiction.

Parolees. Beore realignment, individuals

released rom state prison were supervised

in the community by state parole agents.

Following realignment, however, state

parole agents only supervise individuals

released rom prison whose current

oense is serious or violent, as well as

certain other individualsincluding those

who have been assessed to be Mentally

Disordered Oenders or High Risk Sex

Oenders. Te remaining individuals

those whose current oense is nonserious

and non-violent, and who otherwise are

not required to be on state paroleare

released rom prison to community

supervision under county jurisdiction.

Figure 3

Governors Budget Proposed Expenditures for 2011 Realignment

(In Millions)

201112 201213 201314 201415

Adult offenders and parolees $1,587 $858 $1,016 $950

Local public safety grant programs 490 490 490 490

Court security 496 496 496 496

Pre-2011 juvenile justice realignment 95 99 100 101

EPSDT 579 544 544 544Mental health managed care 184 189 189 189

Drug and alcohol programs 180 180 180 180

Foster care and child welfare services 1,562 1,562 1,562 1,562

Adult Protective Services 55 55 55 55

CalWORKs/mental health transfer 1,105 1,164 1,164 1,164

Unallocated revenue growth 180 444 989

Totals $6,332 $5,816 $6,240 $6,720

EPSDT = Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program.


8/20

2012-13 BudgeT


Tis shi was also done on a prospective

basis, so that only individuals released

rom state prison aer October 1, 2011,

became a county responsibility. County

supervision o oenders released rom

state prison is reerred to as Post-ReleaseCommunity Supervision and will generally

be conducted by county probation

departments.

Parole Violators. Prior to realignment,

individuals released rom prison could

be returned to state prison or violating

a term o their supervision. Following

realignment, however, those oenders

released rom prisonwhether supervised

by the state or countiesmust generally

serve their revocation term in county jail.

(Te exception to this requirement is that

individuals released rom prison aer

serving an indeterminate lie sentence

may still be returned to prison or a

parole violation.) In addition, individuals

realigned to county supervision will

not appear beore the Board o Parole

Hearings (BPH) or revocation hearings,

and will instead have these proceedings

in a trial court. Beore July 1, 2013,

individuals supervised by state parole

agents will continue to appear beore BPH

or revocation hearings. Aer that date,

however, the trial courts will also assume

responsibility or conducting revocation

hearings or state parolees. Tese changes

were also made eective on a prospectivebasis, eective October 1, 2011.

a ces asss ces

me ree oees

Te 2011 realignment legislation made several

other changes designed to acilitate the successul

implementation o the shi o adult oenders to

local responsibility. First, it required each county

to develop a CCP that identied the countys

approach to managing the realigned oenders it

was projected to receive. Te legislation required

a group made up o corrections, law enorcement,judicial, and behavioral health ofcials to develop

each countys plan, which was then submitted to

that countys board o supervisors or approval.

Te 2011-12 budget provided $7.9 million (General

Fund) to counties or the development o CCPs.

Second, the realignment legislation also

created a new state department, the BSCC. Te

BSCC was created by removing the Corrections

Standards Authority (CSA) rom the Caliornia

Department o Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR), where it currently resides. In addition,

BSCC will have responsibility or administering

some local criminal justice grant responsibilities

that currently reside with the Caliornia Emergency

Management Agency (CalEMA). Te BSCC will be

operative beginning July 1, 2012 and, in addition

to the existing missions o CSA and CalEMA, will

have the added responsibility o providing state

level oversight o, and technical assistance to, thelocal corrections system. Te BSCC board will be

made up o 12 members, with hal o the members

representing local governments and agencies, and

the other hal representing other aspects o the state

and local criminal justice system.

Tird, the realignment legislation provided

counties with some additional options or how to

manage the realigned oenders. Te legislation

included provisions allowing or split sentences,

a new sentencing option that allows a judge to

sentence a elon to both jail and community

supervision. Tis is somewhat dierent than what

prior law allowed, where a judge usually sentenced

someone to either jail or probation. In addition,

the legislation allows county probation ofcers

to return oenders who violate the terms o their


9/20

2012-13 BudgeT


community supervision to jail or up to ten days,

which is commonly reerred to as ash incarcer-

ation. Te rationale or using ash incarceration is

that short terms o incarceration when applied soon

aer the oense is identied can be more eective

at deterring subsequent violations than the threato longer terms ollowing what can be lengthy

criminal proceedings.

Fourth, the realignment legislation provided

additional nancial resources or counties. Tis

included $1 million provided to three associa-

tionsthe Caliornia State Association o Counties,

Caliornia State Sheris Association, and Chie

Probation Ofcers o Caliorniaor statewide

training eorts related to the implementation o

realignment. In addition, the Legislature made

changes to accelerate the availability o existing

state unding or jail construction. Specically, the

Legislature approved expedited release o about$600 million in jail construction unding that

had originally been authorized under Chapter 7,

Statutes o 2007 (AB 900, Solorio) but not yet

awarded. (Chapter 7 provided or $1.2 billion in

lease revenue bond authority or the construction

o local jail acilities.)

local imPlEmEntationlargEly ProgrESSing aS PlannEd

Revenue Projections Close to Original

Projections. We last updated our realignment

revenue projections last all or our publication Te

2012-13 Budget: Californias Fiscal Outlook. At that

time, we projected that realignment revenues were

on track with what the administration originally

estimated at the time the 2011-12 budget wasadopted. Te administrations current revenue

estimates are somewhat lower but still project

sufcient revenue growth to cover the expansion

o realignment programs over the next ew years.

We will continue to update our revenue estimates

periodically.

Population Impacts Close to Original

Projections.Based on our conversations with theadministration and county representatives, the

number o new oenders on county caseloads due

to realignment appear to be airly close to what the

administration projected when the realignment

legislation was enacted. While the total caseload

impacts o realignment may be close to original

projections, there may be some variation across

counties, depending on local actors such as

sentencing and supervision decisions and the

number o parole revocations.

Development o CCPs in Most Counties. We

have ound that 47 o the states 58 counties have

completed a CCP as required by law. It is unclear

why some counties have not completed their CCPs,

but they will continue to receive their realignmentallotments even in the absence o an approved plan.

Te CCPs that have been completed vary in the

amount o detail provided, as well as what inor-

mation is included. Te most common elements

included in the CCPs are estimates o the number

o oenders to be realigned to the county, proposed

strategies or managing these oenders, and a

proposed expenditure plan. In reviewing the CCPs,

we ound that 33 CCPs included some level o

detail on how the counties planned to allocate their

realignment unds to manage their new oender

population. While there is considerable variation

in the strategies counties plan on employing, on

average these plans allocated spending in the

ollowing ways:


10/20

2012-13 BudgeT


38 percent to the sheris department,

primarily or jail operations;

32 percent to the probation department,

primarily or supervision and programs;

11 percent or programs and services

provided by other agencies, such as

or substance abuse and mental health

treatment, housing assistance, and

employment services;

9 percent or other services, including

district attorney and public deender costs;

10 percent set aside in reserve or undesig-

nated (reduced to 2 percent i San Diego,which set aside more than hal o its

allocation, is excluded).

We would note that these percentages are

somewhat imprecise given the variation and lack

o scal detail in some CCPs. For example, some

CCPs do not speciy which agency is to provide a

particular program or service (such as substance

abuse treatment)making it unclear i the

service would be provided through the probation

department or another county agency.Hando o Oenders From State to County

Supervision Generally Smooth.Based on ourconversations with countyrepresentatives, thetransition o inmates released rom prison at the

end o their terms to community supervision by

counties has generally gone well. Counties report

that they usually receive inormation on the

oenders to be released well beore their actual

release dates. Also, to assist the transition process,

CDCR has designated someone at each state prison

to be the contact person or counties when they have

questions or problems related to someone scheduled

to be released. Counties report that this has made it

signicantly easier to manage problems quickly.

govErnorS 2012-13 BudgEt ProPoSalSTe Governor proposes a couple o changes

to the 2011 realignment. However, at the time this

analysis was prepared, the administration had not

yet released specic trailer bill language revising

the 2011 realignment unding system. Specically,

the Governor is proposing some changes to

how unding is allocated in uture years. Tese

changes include a somewhat simplied structure o

accounts and subaccounts. Tis modied structure

is shown in Figure 4. It has two main dierences

rom the existing realignment account structure.First, the Governors proposal signicantly reduces

the number o accounts and subaccounts or health

and human services programs so that nearly all

o those programs would be unded rom just two

subaccounts (rather than rom 11 subaccounts).

Counties would also be provided scal exibility

to transer some o the undingequal to an

amount o up to 10 percent o the smaller o the

two subaccountsbetween these two particular

subaccounts. Te administration does not propose

similar changes to the criminal justice accounts or

the budget year, but suggests that similar exibility

to shi unding among law enorcement subac-

counts should be provided to counties beginning in

2015-16.

Second, the Governor proposes that, generally,

any unallocated growth in realignment revenues

estimated at $180 million in 2012-13be allocatedproportionately among all o the accounts and

subaccounts. Te administration is proposing,

however, that child welare unding increase by

$200 million over the coming years and ederally

mandated programs receive priority or unding i

warranted by caseloads and costs.


11/20

2012-13 BudgeT


In addition, the Governors budget or 2012-13

provides counties with $8.9 million rom the

General Fund or CCPs and training, as was

similarly done in the 2011-12 budget. Specically,

the proposed budget includes $7.9 million in

grants to counties to update CCPs or 2012-13 and

$1 million to the three statewide associations to

acilitate training related to realignment.

Governors Proposed Realignment Account Structure

County Local Revenue Fund 1991 Mental HealthResponsibilities

Support ServicesAccount

Law EnforcementServices Account

Protective ServicesSubaccount

Foster Care

Child Welfare Services

Adoptions

Adoption AssistanceProgram

Child AbusePrevention,Intervention,and Treatment

Adult ProtectiveServices

Behavioral HealthSubaccount

Drug Medi-Cal

Drug Courts

Perinatal DrugServices

Non-Drug Medi-CalServices

Mental HealthManaged Care

Early and PeriodicScreening,Diagnosis,and Treatment

Ability to transfer up to10 percent of the lesser

subaccount between

these subaccounts

Trial Court SecuritySubaccount

Law EnforcementServices Subaccount

Community CorrectionsSubaccount

District Attorney/Public Defender

Subaccount

Juvenile JusticeSubaccount

Youthful OffenderBlock Grant

Juvenile Reentry Fund

Figure 4


12/20

2012-13 BudgeT


SomE iSSuES Still nEEd to BE addrESSEd

to PromotE long-tErm SuccESSo any revenue growth so that no single program

or set o programs could be allocated a dispropor-

tionate share o the unding in any county.

Te problem with the Governors proposed

approach is that it leaves counties with little

exibility to ocus their resources towards their

local priorities based on county-specic caseloads,

costs, and preerences. For example, the proposed

approach could limit a countys ability to dedicate

a greater share o revenue towards a specic

program that is growing aster or or which there

is local demand or greater services. In addition,the proposed approach is problematic because

it reduces county incentives to manage their

programs efciently. In other words, a county

would have less scal incentive to control program

costs i that program is getting dedicated unding

regardless o actors that actually drive unding

need such as caseloads.

An alternative approach would be to have the

unallocated revenue growth unding go into a

reserve account and allocated among counties on

a per capita basis. Under this option, each county

would have exibility to spend its share o the

revenue growth as it chooses based on local preer-

ences and priorities.

n Spefe o c as

F ree oees

As discussed above, the allocation o

realignment dollars among counties is identiedin statute or 2011-12 only. Allocations or at least

the budget year need to be determined beore the

end o the current scal year. At the time this

report was prepared, the administration had not

yet proposed an allocation ormula or uture

years. Based on our conversations with the admin-

istration and various local stakeholder groups,

While the 2011 realignment appears to be

progressing largely as intended over its rst ew

months, we believe there are still some outstanding

issues to be addressed. In this section, we raise

concerns with the Governors proposal or how

to distribute the unallocated revenue growth,

the absence o a proposal or how to allocate

realignment dollars dedicated or the adult oender

realignment among counties, and the Governors

proposal to provide counties with $8.9 million in

one-time unding. In addition, we are concerned

that the BSCC does not have well-dened respon-sibilities and that the ormula or a state grant

or county probation departments has not been

updated to account or realignment.

dsb ue reee gw

S n Be de Pp

As described above, the Governor has proposed

a revised and somewhat simplied account

structure or realignment. In general, we think

the proposed changes are an improvement o the

current-year structure because the revised structure

has the potential to provide counties with more

nancial exibility to shi some unding around

to address local needs and priorities, at least or

most o the health and human services programs in

2011 realignment.

We are concerned, however, with the

Governors proposal to distribute the unallocated

revenue growth proportionally among the programaccounts and subaccounts. In eect, each county

would get the same overall share o the unallo-

cated revenue growth as it does o the allocated

realignment unds, with all o that revenue growth

designated or specic accounts. Te rationale or

this approach is that it would ensure that each

account and subaccount receives at least some share


13/20

2012-13 BudgeT


it appears that the administration is hoping to

achieve some consensus among counties around an

allocation ormula to which all counties can agree.

Currently, there is some debate among counties

as to what actors should be used to determine

county allocations. On the one hand, some believethat each countys share should largely reect

the number o criminal oenders estimated to

be shied to each county under realignment. On

the other hand, other counties are concerned that

such an allocation ormula eectively rewards

counties that have historically sent a dispropor-

tionate number o oenders to prison, whereas

other counties may have more requently utilized

prevention programs or alternatives to prison.

As shown in Figure 5 (see next page), counties

have varied widely in the rate at which they

sent oenders to state prison. Te current-year

realignment allocation is more heavily weighted

(60 percent) towards the number o oenders

historically sent to state prison. Tere is, however,

some weight (30 percent) in the allocation

ormula given to the size o each countys adult

population. Te remainder (10 percent) is based

on each countys share o grant unding under theCaliornia Community Corrections Perormance

Incentives Act o 2009 (Chapter 608, Statutes o

2009 [SB 678, Leno]).

Ppse gee F

ae ujsfe

Te Governor proposes $8.9 million in General

Fund monies in 2012-13 to support counties in

their CCP process and or realignment training.

Tis is in addition to the $7.9 million provided in

2011-12. Te CCP process has been a positive one

because it encourages various local stakeholders

to collaborate and coordinate in planning or the

new responsibilities under realignment. As such,

the current-year appropriations or this purpose

had merit because this nancial support assisted

counties in initiating this process beore the rst

oendersand realignment undingbecame

available to counties. We nd, however, that the

need or the state to und this local planning

process no longer exists in the budget year. In

particular, the current realignment plan providescounties an increase o $490 million in 2012-13

specically or the realignment o adult oenders.

Tis increased unding includes a complement o

unding specically or administrative purposes,

which would include local research and planning

eorts. Moreover, counties are estimated to receive

an additional $180 million in realignment unding

in 2012-13 because o projected growth in sales tax

and VLF revenues. Te availability o this additional

unding urther reduces the necessity or the state to

provide General Fund support or these local activ-

ities, particularly given the states scal condition.

re BScc S le uefe

Te Legislature has dened BSCCs mission

broadly, requiring that it collect and disseminate

data and inormation, provide technical assistance

to counties, and oer leadership in the area o

criminal justice policy. However, the Legislature hasnot specically laid out in statute BSCCs respon-

sibilities in ullling this mission, leaving open a

number o questions that need to be addressed. For

example, how should BSCC be structured, what

types o data should it collect, what orm should its

technical assistance take, and how can it help ensure

local accountability and success?

Given its mission, BSCC will be expected

to play an expanded role in local corrections,

especially as counties adjust to their new respon-

sibilities under 2011 realignment. While BSCCs

mission has grown beyond the unctions inherited

rom CSA and CalEMA, the Governors budget

does not propose additional sta or unding. In

addition, the dra BSCC organizational chart

provided by the administration does not appear


14/20

2012-13 BudgeT


Wide Variation in Past Admission Rates Among Counties

2010

Figure 5

100 200 300 400 500 600

NevadaContra Costa

MarinMono

SierraModoc

Santa CruzSan Francisco

AlamedaSan MateoCalaverasTuolumne

SonomaVentura

El DoradoTrinity

Del NorteSanta Clara

ImperialInyo

PlumasPlacer

OrangeSan Luis Obispo

NapaSan DiegoMendocino

MaderaSan Benito

MariposaLassenMercedSolano

SiskiyouSacramento

CaliforniaSanta Barbara

MontereyColusa

San Joaquin

RiversideGlenn

Los AngelesFresno

AmadorStanislaus

LakeButteYolo

HumboldtTulareSutterYuba

ShastaAlpine

San BernardinoKern

TehamaKings

Prison Admission Rates (Admissions Per 100,000 Adult Population)


15/20

2012-13 BudgeT


to contemplate the new mission described in the

realignment legislation. Te organizational chart

includes no new ofces or divisions ocused on the

expanded technical assistance or data collection

responsibilities envisioned by the Legislature in

establishing the BSCC. According to the adminis-tration, additional resources may be requested

and changes to the organizational chart will be

madein the uture aer an executive director or

BSCC has been appointed and has had the oppor-

tunity to develop a more comprehensive plan.

Te lack o denition o BSCCs specic

responsibilities, and the act that BSCCs additional

mission is not accommodated in the admin-

istrations plan (at least or the budget year), is

problematic or two main reasons. First, as local

governments have already begun absorbing

caseload and receiving unding rom 2011 public

saety realignment, counties could benet rom

technical assistance and expertise as they adapt

to their new responsibilities, especially during

this early stage. Second, there is currently no

accountability system in place to ensure that local

programs are operating eectively and efciently.

Te BSCC should play a key role in this area,particularly in collecting and analyzing relevant

data to allow policymakers and the public to

evaluate a programs success. Without statewide

leadership and coordination, the data collected

locally will likely be inconsistent among counties,

making it difcult to compare counties peror-

mance and learn rom local successes.

SB 678 F S nees mf a ree

In accordance with SB 678, counties currently

receive unding based on their success in reducing

the percentage o probationers sent to state

prison compared to a county-specic baseline

percentage o probationers they sent to prison

between 2006 and 2008. Our analysis indicates

that the realignment o adult oenders rom the

state to counties will aect some o the same

oenders captured by the SB 678 ormula. Without

statutory changes, thereore, the SB 678 ormula

could eectively provide counties unding a

second time or oenders already unded through

realignment. Chapter 12, Statutes o 2011 (ABX1 17,

Blumeneld), directs the Department o Finance in

consultation with the Administrative Ofce o the

Courts, the Chie Probation Ofcers o Caliornia,

and CDCR to revise the ormula to account or

this. Te administration has not yet proposed arevised ormula, though we are advised that the

required participants are working on a proposal to

implement the necessary changes.

SPEciFic rEcommEndationS to

PromotE long-tErm SuccESS

Based on the issues discussed above, we oerseveral recommendations designed to improve the

likelihood that realignment will be implemented

successully or the long term. Specically, we

recommend (1) providing counties with exibility

on how to spend the unallocated realignment

revenue growth, (2) adopting an allocation

ormula that provides money to counties in a way

that is responsive to uture changes in countydemographics and other actors related to the

number o oenders they are likely to manage,

(3) rejecting the administrations request to und

local training and planning, and (4) more clearly

dening the responsibilities o BSCC to ocus on

technical assistance and local accountability.


16/20

2012-13 BudgeT


cee resee F reee gw

Pe F Feb

We recommend revising the Governors

proposed account structure to add a reserve und

into which all revenue growth above that which is

already designated or specied programs would be

deposited. In 2012-13, the administration estimates

that this would be about $180 million. Under our

proposal, this unding would be allocated among

the 58 counties on a per capita basis, and each

county would have discretion on how to spend

their share o the reserve und on realignment

programs. Tis approach has two distinct benets.

First, it maximizes local exibility, allowing each

county to spend its share o unding on whicheverrealignment programs best meet their local needs,

caseloads, and priorities. Some counties may want

to prioritize more o its unding or public saety

programs, while other counties may want to invest

more o this discretionary unding into health

and human services programs. Our approach

would allow this variation across counties without

intererence rom the state. Counties would still be

required to ully und ederally mandated programs.

Second, nancial exibility also provides

counties with a greater incentive to manage

program costs more efciently. Under our

approach, each county would have the inherent

incentive to stretch unding as ar as it can to do as

much as it can towards meeting its local priorities.

In contrast, under the Governors proposal,

counties would have to spend the dollars provided

or each program on that program, regardless o

whether each program requires or would benetrom additional unding. Tis means, or example,

that a program would get additional unding even

i it had a declining caseload or i there were ways

to reduce programs costs.

We recognize the Legislature may be concerned

that providing counties with complete exibility

to allocate this growth in unding could mean

that some programs would be allocated little o

that additional unding over time i not a local

priority. o the extent that the Legislature is

concerned about this possibility, it could modiy

our proposal to, or example, require that at least

some minimum share o the unding in the reservebe dedicated to the Support Services Account and

the Law Enorcement Account with the remainder

allocated at the discretion o the county.

des o a F

Be respse Fe ces

Designing an ongoing allocation ormula is

challenging. Any actors used will avor some

counties over others. For the long run, however,

the key is to identiy actors that (1) are reliable

indicators o unding need, (2) adjust allocations

over time as county demographics change, and

(3) are not likely to result in poor incentives or

counties. Based on these criteria, we recommend a

long-term allocation ormula where each countys

share is based on two actors: its population o

adults ages 18 through 35 years old and its number

o adult elony dispositions (excluding dispositions

to state prison). We believe these two actors appro-priately reect each countys potential correctional

workload ollowing realignment. Utilizing the

population actor allows the ormula to reect the

age group within a county statistically most likely

to be at-risk o getting involved in the criminal

justice system and provides greater allocations to

more populous counties. Incorporating adult elony

disposition data into the ormula captures variation

in levels o criminal activity across counties.

Te combination o these two actors have

the advantage o being responsive to changes in

local populations over time, as well as giving some

weight to local variations in elony criminal activity.

Another advantage o this approachas compared to

basing allocations on the number o oenders histor-

ically sent to state prisonis that it provides some


17/20

2012-13 BudgeT


scal incentive or counties that have historically sent

a higher proportion o oenders to prison to be more

innovative and bring down their costs. o the extent

that the Legislature is concerned that our proposed

approach would leave counties currently receiving a

disproportionately high number o oenders romstate prison because o prior sentencing practices, our

proposed unding ormula could be phased in over

a couple o years and, in the interim, could include a

actor related to the number o oenders historically

sent by each county to prison.

Importantly, the two actors we proposed to use

or the long-term allocation ormula are tracked

on an annual basis, allowing allocation changes

as county demographics and other actors change

over time. Tis is important because some counties

are projected to grow much more rapidly than

others over the coming decades. Between 2010 and

2030, the states total population o adults ages 18

through 35 is projected to grow by 18 percent.

Some counties, however, are projected to grow

much aster than the average. For example, among

some o the states largest counties, San Joaquins

population o 18 through 35 year olds is projected

to grow by 70 percent over this period, Kern by42 percent, Riverside by 40 percent, and Santa

Clara by 36 percent. A ormula that did not utilize

population data might leave these and similarly

growing counties at a disadvantage in uture years.

reje ges Pps

a ye F ccPs

We recommend that the Legislature reject the

Governors proposal or $8.9 million to support

counties in their CCP process and or realignment

training. As we described above, the administration

has not provided justication or this second

year o unding. Moreover, with the hundreds

o millions o dollars o additional revenues

counties will receive under the realignment plan,

we think counties can bear the administrative

costs associated with developing CCPs and imple-

menting training activities. Rather than the state

providing direct unding to counties, we think the

state should ocus on developing the BSCC into

an organization that can be a useul resource and

provide technical assistance to counties as theyimplement realignment, as described below.

uze BScc Spp Pb Se t

te assse l ab

Te state has an interest in the overall success

or ailure o realignment because the shi o

oenders rom state to county responsibility

could have a signicant impact on public saety

in Caliornia. In passing realignment legislation,

the Legislature hoped that realignment could

improve public saety outcomes by providing scal

incentives or counties to identiy more eective

ways to manage lower-level criminal oenders,

reduce recidivism, and lower overall criminal

justice costs. On the other hand, i counties are

unsuccessul at implementing realignment, public

saety in Caliornia could be negatively aected

and state and local corrections costs could increase.

Te Legislature envisioned BSCC being theprimary state-level agency working with counties

to ensure the success o realignment. Tereore,

we recommend that the Legislature more clearly

dene BSCCs responsibilities, by adopting budget

trailer bill legislation directing the department to

(1) provide technical assistance to counties and

(2) assist in the development o a local account-

ability system as described below.

echnical Assistance. Current law directs

BSCC to provide technical assistance to county

correctional agencies, though the provisions o this

law do not identiy the boards specic responsibil-

ities in ullling this unction. We have heard rom

county stakeholders, however, that counties would

benet rom a single entity that had expertise in

best practices nationally, as well as inormation


18/20

2012-13 BudgeT


on what other counties are doing that is eective.

For example, the BSCC could be a repository or

counties to access current research and data both

within Caliornia and nationally. We have also

heard that counties, particularly those that have

less experience using correctional best practices,would benet rom having an agency that can

provide assistance in implementing and evaluating

those practices. It may be that BSCC could provide

that unction. Alternatively, BSCC may not need to

provide that type o assistance directly, but it could

provide counties with inormation about which

researchers, practitioners, and universities oer

those services in Caliornia. echnical assistance

perormed by BSCC, in whatever shape it takes, can

assist counties in identiying and implementing

best practices, as well as evaluating how eectively

and efciently local programs are operating. In so

doing, counties can make better decisions on how

to implement realignment to achieve improved

outcomes and reduce costs.

Local Accountability. Current law also requires

BSCC to collect and disseminate Caliornia

corrections data. A state role in data collection

can help promote public saety and the success orealignment i that role is ocused on providing

localaccountability. o the extent that useul

inormation is available to local stakeholders

corrections managers, county elected ofcials,

local media, and the publiclocal governments

can be held accountable or their outcomes and

expenditures. For example, county boards o super-

visors can hold their jail and probation managers

accountable or how eectively and efciently their

programs are managed, and the general public can

raise concerns with their elected ofcials i they see

that their countys outcomes are signicantly worse

than other counties. Because decisions about how

to manage realignment populations and resources

are inherently local decisions, the ocus o account-

ability should be local. For this reason, the role o

BSCC should not be to collect data or the sake o

inorming the state o what is happening locally.

Instead, the role o BSCC should be to acilitate

local accountability, such as by assisting counties

in providing transparency and uniormity in how

they report outcomes.A good example o a statewide system that

promotes local accountability is in the area o

child welare. In this system, inormation on

individual child welare cases is entered into a case

management inormation technology (I) system

by county workers. Te University o Caliornia at

Berkeley then consolidates this data and posts aggre-

gated data on the Internet where it can be accessed

by anyone. Individual level data is not available on

the public website, but people using this site can

create dierent reports showing various outcomes

across counties and across years. Tis accountability

system is comprehensive, ensures uniorm reporting,

and is readily accessible to the public. We have heard

that this system has allowed state and local policy-

makers to make more inormed program decisions,

identiy areas or improvement, and hold program

managers publicly accountable. Unortunately,

developing a similar I system or local correctionsaccountability is probably not practical in the near

term, since creating such a statewide I system takes

years to complete and would be very expensive. For

example, a case management system currently being

implemented by CDCR or the state prison and

parole system will cost about $400 million by the

time it is completed.

Even in the absence o a comprehensive I

system to promote local accountability, like in the

child welare eld, BSCC should play an active

role in ensuring local accountability. Tus, we

recommend that the board, aer being established

in July, take a leadership role in implementing a

uniorm process or counties to report local correc-

tions outcomes. We understand that various stake-

holders (including counties, the administration,


19/20

2012-13 BudgeT


researchers, and universities) have been holding

dierent meetings to discuss data collection issues

and other implementation issues. It is not clear,

however, the degree to which these conversa-

tions are ocused on promoting long-term local

accountability, or the degree to which they will besuccessul in creating statewide uniormity on the

measures to be implemented.

We recommend the Legislature direct the

BSCC (or CDCR, until the BSCC is ofcially

established) to create a working group to identiy

an accountability system that is as comprehensive,

uniorm, and accessible as is reasonable given

limited state and local resources. Tis group

should be made up o representatives o the state,

counties, and the broader research community and

should ocus on (1) identiying the handul o key

outcome measures that all counties should collect,

(2) clearly dening these measures to ensure that all

counties collect them uniormly, and (3) developing

a process or counties to report the data and or

BSCC to make the data available to the public.

In the near term, it would probably be most

practical or the state to simply expand on current

data collection systems. For example, CSA has aquarterly jail survey they conduct o counties. Tis

could be expanded to include probation department

caseloads, as well as to include a ew key outcome

measures, such as successul discharges rom

community supervision and recidivism rates. We

think that building on an existing process may be

the less burdensome and costly or counties. Once

receiving the data rom counties, the BSCC should

be required to post the data on its public website

in a ormat that allows the public to create sortable

reports to compare caseloads and outcomes across

counties and time. Te Legislature may also wantto direct BSCC to begin exploring the easibility o

developing a more comprehensive statewide case

management system, including determining the

overall costs, potential unding sources (including

ederal and private dollars), implementation

challenges (such as in counties without robust

I inrastructures), and the potential scal and

programmatic benets to counties.

Finally, we recommend that the Legislature

direct CSA to report at budget hearings on plans

or how it will ulll the new mission o BSCC. In

particular, the administration should report on

what steps it plans to take to provide technical assis-

tance to counties and to assist in the development

o local accountability systems. Te administration

should also report on how it can ocus on these

responsibilities, within existing resources or to what

extent additional unding may be necessary. As

noted above, the Governors budget provides no newunding or the BSCC. We note that, i adopted, our

recommendation to reject the Governors proposal

to provide counties with planning and training

unding would save $8.9 million in General Fund

resources, some o which could be directed to

support BSCCs new mission.

concluSionTe 2011 realignment o adult oenders has the

potential to produce a more efcient and eective

statewide criminal justice system. Long-term

success, however, will depend on the choices

made, in particular, by county policymakers

and program managers. Te state can promote

success and give counties a better opportunity to

implement realignment eectively by taking some

actions today to support local nancial exibility,

allocating unding in a way that encourages

innovation, and supporting local accountability.


20/20

2012-13 BudgeT

lao PbsThis rport was prpar by Brian Brown, with contribtions ro drw Sorbor an Tor Tarantola, an rviw

by Anthony Sibol. Th Lislativ Analysts Ofc (LAO) is a nonpartisan ofc that provis fscal an policy

inoration an avic to th Lislatr.

To rqst pblications call (916) 4454656. This rport an othrs, as wll as an ail sbscription srvic,

ar availabl on th LAOs wbsit at www.lao.ca.ov. Th LAO is locat at 925 L Strt, Sit 1000,

Sacranto, CA 95814.

Documents

2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212