Administration of Justice 04/04/2013
Public Safety / Corrections System Report
SB 105: Interim Report Submitted
As counties will recall, SB 105 (Steinberg, 2012) enacted the
compromise approach to the state’s long-term management of issues
associated with state prison overcrowding and the related federal
court orders. Among other provisions in the bill, SB 105 directed
the Administration to work with stakeholders and others to
“assess the state prison system, including capacity needs, prison
population levels, recidivism rates, and factors affecting crime
levels, and to develop recommendations on balanced solutions that
are cost effective and protect public safety.” An
interim report on these efforts was submitted, as
required in statute, on April 1. A final report is due in January
2015.
The interim report contains four main sections:
- A discussion of the prison population that focuses on how the characteristics of state prison inmates have changed prior to and after 2011 realignment;
- An examination of the prison capacity needs now and into the future;
- Examination of factors affecting crime; and
- A review of input from stakeholder groups and recidivism reduction efforts.
We encourage counties to review the report.
Webinar Training April 9, 2014: Creating Health Coverage
Enrollment Opportunities for Criminal Justice Populations
Enroll America and the California Endowment, along with
Californians for Safety and Justice, are co-hosting a webinar
training that will highlight efforts in California, Colorado, and
Illinois that are showing good results in terms of connecting
criminal justice populations to the new health coverage options
available under the Affordable Care Act.
During the 60-minute webinar, participants will learn about
successful partnerships between criminal justice and health care
systems in these three states, including best practices for
setting up a health care enrollment program for people in the
justice system, as well as learn more about resources available
for taking this work to the next level.
What: Creating Health Coverage Enrollment Opportunities for
Criminal Justice Populations: Models from California and Across
the Nation
When: April 9, 2014 – 9:30am – 10:30am PST
To register, please click here.
Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) Legislation: Request for
Comment
In recent months the problem of how to deal with mentally-ill
defendants, and specifically those that are deemed incompetent to
stand trial (IST), has been an area of increasing concern for the
Governor’s Administration and the Department of State Hospitals
(DSH). A sharp increase in IST referrals, a lengthening waitlist,
and limited access to mental health treatment in the community,
are several of the issues that have prompted the Governor’s
Office to convene a high-level advisory group to explore the
problems presented by IST individuals.
Recently, the Administration has reached out to CSAC and
requested feedback related to two pieces of legislation sponsored
by the Department of State Hospitals – AB 2625 (Achadjian) and AB
2186 (Lowenthal).
Given the cross-cutting jurisdictional issues presented by these
bills, CSAC has yet to take a position on the measures discussed
below. We expect both bills – described below – to be heard in
Assembly Public Safety committee later this month, although they
have not yet been set for a hearing.
AB 2625 (Achadjian) Defendants: Competence
This bill, by Assembly Member Katcho Achadjian, contains three
provisions designed to streamline the process for returning IST
defendants to their county of commitment after exhausting
treatment at a State Hospital.
Under the bill:
- Counties must receive IST defendants whom they’ve committed to a state hospital no later than 10 days after the superior court has received notification from the hospital that there is no substantial likelihood that the defendant will regain competency.
- The Department of State Hospitals must notify the patient’s defense counsel and the district attorney of the Department’s determination that the defendant is unlikely to regain competency. Additionally, the Department must notify the Sheriff of the committing county so that transportation can be arranged.
- IST defendants who do not restore to competency at a State Hospital within a three-year period must be returned to their county of commitment 90 days prior to the statutory three-year length of stay cap.
DSH believes these changes, if implemented, will increase the
number of beds available for waitlisted IST patients and reserve
space for those who are most likely to benefit from treatment at
a State Hospital. However, by imposing additional
responsibilities on medical directors at local facilities, the
bill would undoubtedly impose a state-mandated local program.
AB 2186 (Lowenthal) Defendants: Involuntary Medication
AB 2186, by Assembly Member Bonnie Lowenthal, aims to make a
number of changes relating to the administration of involuntary
medication (IM) orders for defendants who have been deemed
incompetent to stand trial (IST) and have been committed to a
State Hospital. Specifically, this bill has four main
provisions:
First, the bill would allow an IM order issued by a superior
court to follow a patient between jurisdictions. Under current
law, an IM order is only valid for a State Hospital facility. As
such, the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) believes that IST
patients that have restored to competency may unnecessarily
decompensate in county jail while awaiting a new IM order
authorizing continued medication at the local level.
Second, the bill would allow a superior court to extend an IM
order by 14 days when approved by an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) upon a finding of good cause. Under current law, an ALJ may
issue an IM order after a hearing at a State Hospital, but the
order will expire after 21 days at which point a new order must
be secured from the superior court. DSH believes that superior
courts do not have the resources necessary to keep up with the
demand for new IM hearings and extensions, approved for good
cause, would serve as an alternative tool to ensure that patients
continue to receive medication essential for the success of their
ongoing treatment plan.
Third, the bill would allow a superior court to issue a one year
extension on a previously issued IM order upon a finding of good
cause. Under current law, after one year, a new petition and
superior court hearing must take place to continue involuntary
medication of the patient. DSH believes that a showing of good
cause is sufficient to merit an extension of an IM order given
that staff has limited resources and treatment plans often exceed
one year.
Fourth, the bill would make minor adjustments to the the timing
of competency progress reports and IM reports. Specifically, the
bill would synchronize due dates to reduce staff workload and
ensure a more coordinated delivery to the courts.
While DSH believes that these changes will prevent unnecessary
interruption in essential treatment for IST individuals, it is
important to note that by imposing additional duties on local
prosecuting agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
Mentally Ill Crime Offender Reduction Grants
SB 1054 (Steinberg) – Support
As amended January, 15, 2014
CSAC strongly supports SB 1054, by Senate President Pro Tempore
Darrell Steinberg. This legislation would renew the Mentally Ill
Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program for California
counties. The MIOCR grant program, originally designed to assist
local governments in dealing with the significant population of
jail inmates whose criminal behavior is linked to an underlying
mental illness, was established over a decade ago. However,
continuous funding cuts to the program have resulted in many of
these once successful programs falling by the wayside.
Senator Steinberg’s proposal aims to reinvest $50 million for new
MIOCR grants proposed to be divided equally between adult
programs and programs for youthful offenders. Through a
competitive bidding process, counties would apply for funding to
begin or enhance programs that provide mental health services to
individuals who become involved with the criminal justice
system.
Given that the bill makes an appropriation from the state’s
General Fund, it will require approval by a 2/3 vote of the
Legislature. SB 1054 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety
Committee on April 22, 2014.
Misdemeanor Violations / Amnesty Program
AB 2085 (Fox) – Concerns
As amended March 19, 2014
After reviewing the language of AB 2085, by Assembly Member Steve
Fox, which authorizes an amnesty program for delinquent court
fines for a year-long period from January 1 to December 31, 2016,
CSAC would like to alert our membership to several concerns we
have expressed to the author’s office.
First, an amnesty program that concluded 18 months ago was
evaluated as specified in statute. The Judicial Council’s report
on that effort revealed that approximately $15 million in
delinquent debt was cleared through this effort, with qualified
individuals paying 50 cents on every dollar owed. That collection
level reflects less than 1 percent of what had been estimated to
be potentially collectible.
Further, there are additional operational aspects of the bill
that are of concern. While CSAC acknowledges and appreciates
recent amendments to clarify that the execution of the amnesty
program would be permitted only when both the local court and
county agree, from a statewide perspective, we question the
efficacy of jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction decisions and wonder if
a more appropriate model would be one undertaken
statewide.
Finally, a more significant structural concern is one of timing.
While CSAC does not have a recommended standard for the interval
between amnesty programs, our general sense is that it may be too
soon to offer a discount on delinquent court-ordered debt. When
the jointly sponsored court-county effort to authorize the 2012
amnesty program was enacted in 2010, the previous amnesty program
had run in 1996 – some 16 years earlier. To enact a measure now
authorizing a program beginning in 2016 effectively signals to
the public the notion that it “pays” to ignore court-ordered
obligations, because an opportunity to settle the debt at 50
cents on the dollar is just two years away. CSAC believes this
timing aspect will further diminish already declining collection
receipts.
For these reasons, CSAC feels compelled to raise concerns
regarding AB 2085. The bill was approved by the Assembly Public
Safety Committee on March 25, 2014 on a 5-0 vote. The next
opportunity for members to vote on the bill will be April 21,
2014 in Assembly Transportation Committee.
Mandatory Supervision
AB 579 (Melendez) – Support
As amended January, 15, 2014
AB 579 by Assembly Member Melissa Melendez is an urgency measure
that seeks to clarify in state law that the period of mandatory
supervision period begins immediately upon release from custody
for individuals who have been given a split sentence under Penal
Code Section 1170 (h) as a result of 2011 Realignment.
This is not a new policy, but rather clean-up language necessary
to correct a chaptering out issue created by 2013 legislation
which amended the same code section and inadvertently removed the
mandatory supervision language.
CSAC supports this measure as it will ensure that county
probation departments are – once again – able to initiate their
mandatory supervision duties as originally intended by
statute.
AB 579 is co-sponsored by the California State Sheriffs’
Association and the Chief Probation Officers of California. The
bill has received no dissenting votes to date and is currently
awaiting a vote on the Senate Floor.
AB 2199 (Muratsuchi) – Support
As introduced February 20, 2014
Assembly Bill 2199, by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, would expand
existing law that authorizes the court to direct specified
defendants to pay all or a portion of the reasonable cost of
probation-related services.
AB 2199 is a straightforward and narrowly crafted bill drafted as
a necessary response to a recent appellate court decision (Peo.
v. Fandinola), which found that current law does not permit
charging probation fees to a person on mandatory
supervision.
CSAC supports AB 2199 as a reasonable statutory correction
allowing the court to order a defendant to contribute to their
own supervision services.
AB 2199 (Muratsuchi) was approved unanimously in the Assembly
Public Safety Committee and has been recommended for the consent
calendar on the Assembly Floor.
Probation Officer Arming
AB 2314 (Hall) – Oppose
As introduced February 21, 2014
Assembly Bill 2314, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, would
require that the Chief Probation Officer of a county train and
arm all probation officers and deputy officers that have
caseloads that may include offenders who are deemed to be
high-risk.
As it stands now under current law, probation officers may be
authorized by their employing agency to carry a firearm, but that
decision remains at the discretion of the Chief Probation Officer
of each jurisdiction. For good reason, the arming of probation
officers has always been a local decision.
If AB 2314 were to become law, the bill would effectively impose
a blanket arming requirement and do away with local discretion.
Counties currently have the authority and discretion to determine
when arming is appropriate and therefor this bill is overly
restrictive and unnecessary. CSAC has joined with the Urban
Counties Caucus (UCC), the Rural County Representatives of
California (RCRC), as well as the County of Los Angeles in
opposition to the bill.
AB 2314 has been referred to the Assembly Public Safety
Committee.
Probation Funding
AB 2373 (Hernandez) – Oppose
As amended March 24, 2014
CSAC is strongly opposed to Assembly Bill 2373, by Assembly
Member Roger Hernandez. The bill sets a dangerous precedent that
restricts local budgeting authority by requiring a county to
provide probation departments with available discretionary
resources or carry out a burdensome process to illustrate why
funds cannot be provided.
Under existing law, the chief probation officer of a county may
identify in writing to the superior court presiding judge and the
board of supervisors when, in his or her opinion, there are
insufficient resources to carry out statutory or court-ordered
responsibilities. AB 2373 would expand this provision in a way
that represents a significant incursion into the foundational
responsibilities of county boards of supervisors. Not only would
a county have to carry out an incredibly detailed process –
including engaging with an outside auditor to perform a full
financial accounting of available resources – but the objective
of the process is for the county to turn over any identified
discretionary funds to the probation department.
CSAC believes AB 2373 is an affront to the core responsibility of
county boards of supervisors whose core responsibility is to
responsibly identify budget priorities across dozens of county
departments and hundreds of vital programs and services.
For these reasons, CSAC strongly opposes this measure. AB 2373
will be heard in Assembly Local Government Committee on April 9,
2014.
Composition of Community Corrections Partnership
AB 2526 (Gonzalez) – Oppose
As amended March 20, 2014
CSAC opposes yet another attempt to change the membership
composition of the Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs),
which comes in the form of Assembly Bill 2526 by Assembly Member
Lorena Gonzalez.
Under the bill, the structure of local CCPs and their executive
committee would be forced to expand to accommodate two additional
members: a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police officer and a
rank-and-file probation officer.
CSAC fears that allowing the passage of this bill would be just
the beginning of additional legislation aimed at changing the
composition of the CCP and its executive committee. CSAC, along
with the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC) believes that successful
implementation of realignment requires that these bodies do not
become too large or unwieldy given their enormous public safety
responsibilities under AB 109.
For these reasons, both CSAC and UCC oppose this measure. AB 2526
has been referred to Assembly Public Safety Committee.