Administration of Justice 09/16/2013
Prison Population Reduction Plan
SB 105 (Steinberg) – Support
Chapter No. 310, Statutes of 2013
Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 105, the compromise prison
population reduction plan, into law on September 12, the day
following its passage by the Legislature. The bill’s provisions
go into effect immediately, giving the state the ability to work
swiftly toward complying with the standing federal court order to
additionally reduce the state prison population by December 31,
2013 – or, if possible, to strike a new agreement with the court.
SB 105 reconciles the differences between the plan presented in
late August by the Governor and three of the legislative leader
and that of the Senate Democrats. By merging the best elements of
both approaches, SB 105 preserves counties’ ongoing efforts to
improve offender outcomes, offers a safe yet temporary solution
to avoid early prison releases necessitated by the court’s order,
and gives time to develop thoughtful and sustainable solutions.
This resolution – broadly supported by counties, the sheriffs,
probation chiefs, district attorneys, police chiefs, victims’
rights advocates, and other groups – is good for counties and
good for Californians and is consistent with the direction of
CSAC’s Board of Directors.
A bit of background is in order. At its September 5 meeting, the
CSAC Board spent several hours discussing and dissecting what at
the time were dueling plans for dealing with the prison
overcrowding crisis. Governor Jerry Brown spent nearly two hours
with the Board discussing the complexity of correctional
challenges facing the state and counties and outlining the
necessity for his short-term capacity plan contained in SB 105.
Senior staff to Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg – who
would have been there himself, but he was observing Rosh
Hashanah, the Jewish New Year – presented the Senate Democrats’
alternative, which emphasized investment in recidivism reduction
programs and other community corrections alternatives. The CSAC
Board affirmed its support of the Governor’s capacity-only plan
for the short-term, but urged the Administration and Legislature
to reconcile the two approaches to avoid early prison releases
and to invest in smart criminal justice practices over the
long-term. One week ago today, the Governor and all four
legislative leaders announced such a compromise plan.
SB 105, as signed by the Governor, means no early releases from
state prison and – if the court grants the state more time or
relaxes the prison population cap – would direct savings to
programs investments that reduce recidivism. It does not impose
new programmatic responsibilities on counties, nor does it
contemplate a sentencing commission. It affords policy makers and
key stakeholders additional time to develop long-term,
sustainable correctional solutions. There are four key components
to the measure:
Maintains the Governor’s plan in that it appropriates $315
million in 2013-14 to invest in in- and out-of-state capacity,
permitting the state to comply with the federal court’s order to
reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
by year’s end. It assumes a further investment of up to $400
million in capacity purposes for next fiscal year. This default
mechanism assures under all circumstances that there will be no
early releases from prison.
Provides for investment in recidivism reduction programs if the
federal court adjusts its order – either by giving the state more
time to comply with the existing cap or by revisiting the
required population threshold. Should the state come to a new
agreement with the court, then up to $75 million in savings – due
to avoiding capacity expenditures – would go to a new Recidivism
Reduction Fund, which would be appropriated by the Legislature
for services and interventions. Any additional savings
achieved beyond the $75 million would be shared equally between
the state general fund and the Recidivism Reduction Fund.
Improves the existing Community Corrections Performance Incentive
Act (SB 678 – Leno and Benoit of 2009) funding methodology to
ensure more funding certainty and stability for local programs
over the long term.
Changes the timeline for comprehensive, long-term solutions as
contemplated by SB 105, the Governor’s proposal. An interim
report would be due to the Legislature by April 2014; a final
report would be due by January 10, 2015 – the date the Governor’s
proposed 2015-16 budget is due.
CSAC will provide details on related developments in the coming weeks and months.
Public Finance Trailer Bill
SB 100 – Watch
Enrolled September 11, 2013
The public finance trailer bill now on its way to the Governor
contains a number of clarifying and corrective changes. As it
relates to public safety matters, we highlight three provisions
of interest to counties in SB 100:
Distribution of ELEAS funds – An issue associated with the
distribution of the various local law enforcement subventions
funded out of 2011 Realignment (specifically the Enhancing Law
Enforcement Activities Subaccount (ELEAS)) was recently
identified. Modifications to relevant sections were needed to
ensure that a fixed funding level for the booking fee replacement
revenue ($35 million) and to subsequently ensure that all
remaining funds can be appropriately disbursed out of the
account. Since the amendments contained in SB 100 affect
the 2012-13 ELEAS allocations, the State Controller’s Office held
back a portion of 2012-13 ELEAS funding in order to true-up
allocations in anticipation of this language being enacted. The
holdback was necessary in order to ensure that 2012-13
allocations would be consistent with 2013-14, as well as the
original intent of the language.
Counties may have noticed that they have not yet received the
full 2012-13 allocations as anticipated, but should be aware that
SB 100 is meant to correct the distribution mechanism and all
funds (ELEAS has a guaranteed funding level of $489.9 million
annually) are distributed as intended. Perhaps more importantly,
counties should be aware that once all 2012-13 ELEAS funds are
distributed, the $35 million in booking fee revenue will be
reached, meaning that no county should be charging booking fees
to their municipalities for 2012-13.
SB 678 Data Collection – SB 100 removes the requirement for
counties to collect and report information on the number of
felons who would have been subject to an 1170(h) sentence had
felony probation not been granted. SB 75, the judiciary trailer
bill enacted along with the budget, added this reporting
requirement, but in several jurisdictions the information was not
attainable. The data collection requirement related to that
element has been eliminated.
Juvenile Interstate Compact Sunset Extension – The sunset date
for the Juvenile Interstate Compact will be extended from July 1,
2014 to July 1, 2016.
Court Contracting-Out Provisions
AB 566 Wieckowski – Watch
Enrolled September 12, 2013
AB 566, by Assembly Member Bob Wieckowski, would limit trial
courts’ ability to contract out for services. To ensure that the
measure would not affect county-operated court-ordered debt
programs, CSAC requested a letter to the journal, which enters
into the legislative record the author’s intent regarding a
measure.
AB 56 sets up various due diligence standards before a trial
court could privatize a service. It expressly exempts certain
enumerated contracts from the due diligence standards set out in
the bill, including those between a trial court and other
government entities. This letter to the journal spells out
that the measure is not intended to affect county-operated
enhanced collection programs or other collection services carried
out by a county on behalf of a court.
Judgment Interest Rate
AB 748 (Eggman) – Support
Enrolled September 10, 2013
AB 748, by Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman, would amend
the current calculation of the judicial interest rate charged to
public entities. This bill was sponsored by the Urban Counties
Caucus and supported by CSAC, various counties, and other
groups.
Under current law, the interest rate for claims against public
entities is 7 percent. By way of comparison, the interest rate on
federal judgments is indexed to a Treasury yield, which currently
sits at less than 1 percent. At a time of historically low
interest rates, CSAC believes it is appropriate to revise the
mechanism by which interest rates on claims are
calculated.
AB 748 would specify that for any tax or fee claim that results
in a judgment against a public entity, the judicial interest rate
would be set at the weekly average one-year constant maturity
U.S. Treasury yield. Further, the measure provides that for
post-interest judgments, the rate on the claim would be the U.S.
Treasury yield plus 2 percent. The bill ensures that in no case
would the calculation exceed the existing rate of 7 percent
annually. AB 748 maintains current law requiring local
governments to pay claims promptly.
CSAC believe AB 748 is appropriate and fair, as it merely seeks
to modernize the interest rate calculation to reflect current
market conditions in a very narrow set of claims. We are
requesting the Governor’s signature on the bill and would
encourage other counties to do so as well.
Identity Theft
AB 1149 (Campos) – Oppose
Enrolled September 10, 2013
AB 1149, by Assembly Member Nora Campos, would require local
agencies to notify consumers of a breach if unauthorized persons
access specified personal information. The bill was amended late
in the legislative session to avoid chaptering out provisions –
meaning it now will incorporate changes to the same section of
law made by another bill (SB 46, by Senator Ellen Corbett) – to
ensure that if the both bills are passed and signed into law then
both sets of amendments are enacted.
CSAC – as part of a broad coalition of public agency advocacy
groups – is in opposition to the bill for fiscal and operational
reasons. As detailed in previous Bulletins, public agency groups
do not oppose the policy objective being advanced in AB 1149. It
is merely a question of resources and concern over the precedent
that local governments – after some 35 years of being expressly
exempt from its provisions – would be subject to a portion of the
Information Practices Act (IPA).
The practical effect of double joining AB 1149 to SB 46 is that
it would likely increase the scope of potential workload
associated with the breach notification requirements in AB 1149.
SB 46 on its own does not impose any new duties on local
governments; it merely expands the definition of “personally
identifiable information” to include the user name, password, and
security questions. However, if AB 1149 is signed, all of the
existing breach notification law, plus the expanded definition
and duties offered in SB 46, would be imposed upon local
governments.
CSAC will be seeking the Governor’s veto on this measure given
the precedent it sets with respect to the IPA and because of the
unfunded mandate it would impose.
Medical Parole: Notification to Counties
AB 68 (Maienschein) – Support
Enrolled September 9, 2013
AB 68, Assembly Member Brian Maienschein, would require the
transmittal of information relative to medical parole hearings
and releases to counties, as specified.
As counties may recall, CSAC and an array of county groups were
actively involved in SB 1399 (Leno, 2010) that established
California’s medical parole program. We provided technical input
into the bill to ensure that the measure was operationally
feasible at the local level, recognized the potential impacts and
interactions with county governments, and maximized the use of
federal funds for covering the medical costs of individuals
released onto this new status.
AB 68, sponsored by San Diego County, seeks to enhance
communication associated with the hearing process for medical
parole candidates as well as the subsequent release process.
These details were not specified in the original measure but
would be helpful to counties, particularly in instances where the
recipient county may not be the county of commitment. The bill is
narrowly crafted and seeks to help ensure that pertinent
information about the inmate and plans for his or her
post-release care are transmitted on a timely basis to affected
jurisdictions.
Vehicle Registration Fees: Vehicle Theft Prevention
AB 767 (Levine) – Support
Chapter No. 241, Statutes of 2013
AB 767, by Assembly Member Marc Levine, authorizes counties to
increase vehicle registration fee from $1 to $2 for motor
vehicles and from $2 to $4 for commercial vehicles. Proceeds
would support vehicle theft efforts. This authority can be
exercised only after adoption of a resolution by the board of
supervisors. The Governor signed the measure into law on
September 6.
By way of background, AB 1404 (Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012)
authorized these increases for three specified counties. AB 767
expands the authority across all 58 counties and deletes the
existing sunset on the vehicle registration surcharge. The
revenues derived from the surcharge are dedicated to vehicle
theft abatement programs. The bill maintains existing
requirements regarding expenditure and programmatic reporting,
and it specifies the vehicle-theft related purposes for the funds
in counties. The bill also authorizes jurisdictions that may not
yet have exercised the original $1 surcharge to approve a $2
surcharge, in accordance with procedures outlined in the bill.