2011 realignment of adult offenders 022212
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
2/20
2012-13 BudgeT
2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
4/20
2012-13 BudgeT
4 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
5/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 5
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
6/20
2012-13 BudgeT
6 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
7/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 7
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
8/20
2012-13 BudgeT
8 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
9/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 9
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:
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
10/20
2012-13 BudgeT
10 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
11/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 11
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
12/20
2012-13 BudgeT
12 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
13/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 13
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
14/20
2012-13 BudgeT
14 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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)
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
15/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 15
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
16/20
2012-13 BudgeT
16 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
17/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 17
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
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
18/20
2012-13 BudgeT
18 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov
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,
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
19/20
2012-13 BudgeT
www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 19
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.
-
8/3/2019 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders 022212
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.