BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
Mark Leno, Chair
Bill No: AB 84
Author: Committee on Budget
As Amended: September 3, 2013
Consultant: Joe Stephenshaw
Fiscal: Yes
Hearing Date: September 4, 2013
Subject: Public Safety
Summary: This bill establishes an advisory California
Commission on Public Safety, and enacts the Public Safety
Performance Incentive Act of 2013.
Background: This bill broadly pertains to federal
litigation concerning conditions in California's prisons
that began in 1990 (Coleman v. Brown -- mental health) and
expanded in 2001 (Plata v. Brown -- health care). In 2005,
the Plata court established the Receivership and, in 2006,
the plaintiffs in Coleman and Plata sought a three-judge
federal court under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1996 capable of issuing a population reduction order. That
panel was convened in July of 2007 and, in August of 2009,
that panel issued an order directing the state to reduce
the institutional prison population to 137.5 percent of
design capacity within two years.
On May 23, 2011, The United States Supreme Court upheld
this population limit, along with the two-year deadline
imposed to achieve the reduction. Writing the Opinion of
the Court, Justice Kennedy noted the state already had made
"significant progress toward reducing its prison population
. . . If significant progress is made toward remedying the
underlying constitutional violations, that progress may
demonstrate that further population reductions are not
necessary or are less urgent than previously believed.
Were the State to make this showing, the three-judge court
in the exercise of its discretion could consider whether it
is appropriate to extend or modify this timeline."
Following the Supreme Court's decision, in June of 2011 the
three-judge court issued an order setting a schedule for
-1-
prison population reductions, meeting 137.5 percent of
design capacity by June 27, 2013. In October of 2011, AB
109 (realignment) was enacted as a primary means for the
state to achieve the population reduction. Numerous court
filings followed throughout 2012, generally reflecting the
parties' sparrings as to whether the state could in fact
meet the deadline, whether the 137.5 percent cap should be
modified, and whether the state already was in contempt of
the court's order. These legal battles, too numerous to
specify, generally amplified in 2013, including motions on
the part of the state to vacate or modify the 137.5 percent
of design capacity order, and a motion to terminate the
Coleman case. At this time, the Governor declared that the
crisis in the prisons was resolved, and terminated his
emergency powers necessary to form out-of-state prison
contracts to ease the in-state population levels. In
January, the three-judge court granted the state a
six-month extension to meet the population reduction order,
which is the December 31, 2013 deadline now faced by the
state. In April, the panel ordered the state to
"immediately take all steps necessary" to comply with the
reduction order. This summer, the Supreme Court denied the
administration's motion to stay the December 31, 2013
deadline for reaching 137.5 percent of design capacity.
The Administration's appeal seeking plenary review of the
three-judge court's orders is now pending before the
Supreme Court.
This bill would address California's correctional policies
and practices, pertaining to the prison overcrowding
litigation described above, as follows:
This bill would establish an advisory, permanent 18-member
"Public Safety Commission" for the purposes of 1) providing
information and recommendations to the legislature and the
Governor in 2015 and thereafter to assist with prison
population management options consistent with public
safety, effective correctional practices, and the effective
allocation of public safety resources; develop
recommendations for the Legislature and the Governor to
consider in 2015 and thereafter regarding criminal
sentences and evidence-based programming for criminal
offenders; and develop recommendations for the Legislature
and the Governor to consider sentencing credits by no later
-2-
than December 1, 2015.
The commission would be staffed independently by staff
physically sited in the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
This bill would enact the "Public Safety Performance
Incentive Act of 2013," with the following key features:
The Act would be supported with seed funding to
all counties, as specified, based upon per capita
18-25 population, to support evidence-based programs
and practices likely to reduce the number of
offenders admitted to state prison, as specified.
The Act would be supported with seed funding to
superior courts to support the administration and
operation of court programs and practices known to
reduce offender recidivism, as specified.
The Act would establish an incentive-based
funding formula by which counties that succeed in
reducing crime among felony offender populations --
measured by reductions in new admission to state
prison -- receive state grant funding to support
local criminal justice programs and practices.
The Act would use new prison admissions from
2012 and the first eight months of 2013 to establish
a statewide baseline against which to measure future
reductions.
The Act would require the Administrative Office
of the Courts, in consultation with specified
stakeholders, to specify and define minimum
outcome-based measures, as specified, and to provide
annual reports on the implementation of the Act.
Fiscal Effect:
This bill appropriates $1 million from the General Fund for
the purposes of supporting the Public Safety Commission for
the remainder of the current fiscal year.
-3-
This bill appropriates $180 million from the General Fund
for the purposes of supporting the Public Safety
Performance Incentive Act of 2013 with respect to county
criminal justice practices and programs, as specified, for
the remainder of the current fiscal year.
This bill appropriates $20 million from the General Fund
for the purposes of supporting the Public Safety
Performance Incentive Act of 2013 with respect to superior
court programs and practices known to reduce offender
recidivism, as specified, for the remainder of the current
fiscal year.
This bill contemplates not more than $315 million in future
annual funding to support local evidence-based criminal
justice practices and programming.
This bill appropriates $500,000 from the General Fund to
the Administrative Office of the Courts for the purpose of
supporting the Public Safety Performance Incentive Act of
2013 for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
Support: Unknown
Opposed: Unknown
Comments:
Federal Litigation: This bill appears designed to address
the federal court's directive that California achieve a
durable remedy to prison overcrowding. In addition, the
bill appears to be predicated on the federal court
modifying the December 31, 2013 deadline as a revision
appropriate to its equitable decree based on the state's
fiscal commitments reflected in the bill and the time
necessary to implement the bill's provisions.
SB 678 Model: The Public Safety Performance Incentive Act
contained in this bill is modeled after SB 678 (Leno -
2009), which incentivized improved, evidence-based
practices for felony probation supervision to reduce the
number of felony probationers being failed into prison. In
2011, the second calendar year of SB 678 implementation,
California probation departments successfully diverted an
-4-
average daily population of over 9,500 offenders from going
to state prison, This action resulted in a 2011 state
savings of approximately $284 million (with total savings
of $536 million over the first three years). Half of those
savings were shared with counties to continue their
successful supervision practices.
Public Safety Commission: This bill would create a
permanent, advisory commission to examine prison population
management practices and sentencing policies for the
purpose of developing information and recommendations to
the Legislature and the Governor. The commission would be
comprised of 18 members, reflecting law enforcement, the
bench, the defense bar, specified experts, and others. The
Governor would appoint the chair and executive director.
-5-