Administration of Justice update 4/11/2014
2014-15 Proposed Budget
Key Subcommittee Hearings Slated for Later in April
As counties are aware, the Governor presented his proposed 2014-15 budget on January 10; CSAC’s summary of the key elements of the Administration’s recommended spending plan can be found here. The Legislature’s review of the Governor’s proposals is now underway, with each house’s relevant budget subcommittees meeting to review and potentially take action on the various proposals. As for public safety issues of interest to counties, the subcommittee review will take place later this month, with the Assembly subcommittee meeting on April 23 and the Senate subcommittee meeting the following day. We encourage counties to review the CSAC public safety budget letter already distributed broadly in the Capitol.
Counties are encouraged to monitor the development of trailer bill to carry out the justice-related budget proposals. Initial drafts for most of the proposals outlined above have been posted to the Department of Finance’s (DOF) website. From that link, click through to Correctional and General Government [200-299] page to view the specific proposals. We have provided a quick summary of each of the relevant proposals below.
[200] – Felony disposition data for YOBG
Requires Department of Justice (DOJ) – by July 10 of each year –
to provide DOF with the number of juvenile felony court
dispositions for the previous calendar year. This data is used as
50% of the basis for allocating the Youthful Offender Block Grant
(funds to support counties’ juvenile justice system
responsibilities transferred under SB 81, 2007). Current law
requires DOJ to provide “most recent data compiled.”
[207] – Extend Reentry Period
Revises the eligibility criteria for the population a county
could – if the board of supervisors enters a contract with the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – accept
into its local reentry programs. Current law specifies that the
inmates must be within 60 of release from state prison; this
language would extend the timeframe to one year. The language is
consistent with the Governor’s proposed expanded community
reentry program and is meant to encourage collaboration and
partnership between the state and counties.
[208] – Alternative Reentry for County Female Population
Establishes new county authority under the sheriff or corrections
director (parallel to authority granted to state under SB 1266,
Liu (2010)) that permits release of specified female inmates onto
an alternative custody program.
[209] – Jail Custody Credits for Electronic Monitoring and Work
Furlough
Seeks to harmonize jail custody credits for populations on
electronic monitoring and work furlough with other populations
under county jail populations.
[210] – Delete sunset for county inmate transfers
Current law permits a county (with the approval of the board of
supervisors and concurrence of sheriff) to enter into an
agreement with another county to transfer jail inmates. This
authority is set to expire in 2015; this language would delete
the sunset. [Note that a policy bill – SB 1512 (Stone) – is
moving on a parallel track. With amendments taken, the bill would
extend the sunset to 2018 and would specify that only sentenced
inmates qualify for the transfer provisions.]
[211] – One-year enhancement for violation of mandatory
supervision
Would require imposition of a one year enhancement for persons
who are convicted of a felony while on mandatory supervision.
[212] – Presumption of a split sentence
Imposes a presumption of a split sentence, unless a court finds
in the interest of justice that such an approach is not
appropriate in a particular case, as follows:
- For sentences of less than three years: court’s discretion to determine length of mandatory supervision (although total period of custody + supervision may not exceed length of total sentence)
- For sentences of between 3 years and 8 years, at least one year of mandatory supervision
- For sentences longer than 8 years, a period not to exceed one-third of the total sentence
[213] – Technical clean-up on mandatory supervision
Reinstating previous language “chaptered out” inadvertently in
2013. Would clarify that a period of mandatory supervision begins
immediately upon a person’s release from jail. [NOTE: Also
advancing on separate legislative track as AB 579 (Melendez), an
urgency bill CSAC is supporting.]
[214] – Statutory allocation percentages
Intent language only to convert four specified programs funded
out of the 2011 Realignment subaccount known as the Enhancing Law
Enforcement Activities Subaccount (ELEAS) to statutorily
specified allocations. Under current law, allocations for four
programs – Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG), Juvenile Reentry
Grant, Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), and
Citizens’ Option for Public Safety – require reliance on one or
more dynamic data elements that necessitate recalculation on an
annual basis.
[215] – Other ELEAS clean-up
Makes other corrective, technical changes to language that
allocates funds to various law enforcement local assistance
programs.
[216] – Revise reporting requirements for YOBG and JJCPA
Intent language to revise reporting requirements for YOBG and
JJCPA.
[217] – Supplantation references
For consistency purposes, converts previous supplantation
references within specified law enforcement programs funded under
2011 Realignment (e.g., COPS, JJCPA, rural and small county
sheriffs, Juvenile Reentry Fund) to language identical to that of
Proposition 30.
[220] – Long-term jail inmates
Intent language for budget proposal to provide that felony
sentences of more than 10 years are to be served in state prison
rather than county jail.
We urge counties to review the language and provided feedback on any items of concern.
Probation Funding
AB 2373 (Hernandez) – Oppose / Request for comments
As proposed to be amended
As discussed last week, CSAC took a position of strong opposition to the version of AB 2373, by Assembly Member Roger Hernandez, now in print. In our view, the bill would set 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 now proposes to 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 provided testimony is opposition to AB 2373 this week when it was heard in the Assembly Local Government Committing, citing our view that the bill is an affront to the core responsibility of county boards of supervisors to responsibly identify budget priorities across dozens of county departments and hundreds of vital programs and services.
The author took an amendment in committee – which is not yet in print – to eliminate the requirement for a county to engage an outside auditor to perform a review of financial resources. The bill would continue to require the county to provide written notification to the probation officer and presiding judge if the county determines that it does not have the resources available to meet the needs identify by the probation chief. CSAC is requesting county feedback on the proposed revisions of the bill.
Prison Overcrowding
Compliance Officer Appointed
As counties will recall, one key element of the federal court’s final order in the state’s prison overcrowding case was that the plaintiffs and the defendants (the state) must agree on the appointment of an individual charged with a variety of responsibilities in ensuring that steps toward meeting the population cap are progressing. Among the duties assigned to the compliance officers are identifying and ordering release of lower-risk inmates if the state were to miss a specified population benchmark during the two year extension granted during which the state must come in to compliance with the population cap. The court order notes that the compliance officer shall retain his or her powers until it is “firmly established” that the state’s achievement of the 137.5% population benchmark is durable.
This week, the court appointed Mr. Elwood Lui, former appellate court justice, to oversee the prison population reductions. A copy of the court’s order appointing Justice Lui can be found here.
Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) Legislation: Department of State Hospitals Requests Feedback from Counties
Once again, the issue of how to deal with mentally-ill defendants, and specifically those that are deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST), has been brought to CSAC’s attention. The Department of State Hospitals is sponsoring two priority bills. The first bill, AB 2625 (Achadjian) addresses issues related to IST individuals who are deemed unable to restore to competency and can no longer benefit from treatment at a state hospital. The second bill, Assembly Bill 2186 (Lowenthal), deals with IST individuals that require involuntary medication (IM) orders.
Given the cross-cutting jurisdictional issues presented by these bills, CSAC has yet to take a position on the measures discussed below. We would like to provide constructive feedback to the Department of State Hospitals on these measures, so please don’t hesitate to share any comments or concerns about the local impacts of these measures.
We expect both bills to be heard in Assembly Public Safety committee later this month.
AB 2625 (Achadjian) Defendants: Competence
This bill, authored by Assemblyman 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
This bill, authored by Assemblywoman 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.
Please email any comments or concerns regarding these measures to
eespinosa@counties.org or lbiggs@counties.org.
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND LIABILITY IN A POST REALIGNMENT WORLD
Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Hyatt Regency, Sacramento
On behalf of the Joint Training Partnership – a collaboration of CSAC, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California – we would like to remind you that there is still time to register for this course and onsite registration will be available as well.
This one-day session will offer diverse county perspectives that focus on four main areas:
- The impact of realignment on facility construction;
- Determining county needs;
- Getting shovels in the ground: A 360º perspective; and
- Tips for managing the construction process from key authorities.
Also, as a reminder, this course should be of interest to any county in the process of a jail construction project or contemplating seeking future funding for a construction project.
To register, please click here!
REGISTRATION FEES: $100/individual, includes course materials and lunch.
Please make CHECKS payable to CPOCF.
ATTN: Liz Moralez-Rodriguez
Chief Probation Officers of California Foundation
1415 L Street, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA 95814
To take advantage of the special room rate, please book your accommodation by clicking here.
Thank you! We hope you can join us!
Administration of Justice Policy Committee Meeting Materials Available Online
Today, CSAC’s Administration of Justice Policy Committee chaired by Supervisor Federal Glover of Contra Costa County met to discuss a broad array of issues involving California’s criminal justice system.
Special guest speakers included Executive Staff of the California
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, as well as
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Venus Johnson from the
California Department of Justice.
The committee’s agenda included a lively discussion of topics of
interest to members including victim restitution collection,
human trafficking and truancy prevention efforts, as well as
recent programs launched to study and promote recidivism
reduction in California’s communities.
Staff also prepared presentations covering a number of public safety and budget related topics including a 2014 overview of criminal justice related budget priorities and trailer bills, an update on prison overcrowding and the three-judge panel order, and a listing of current legislation broken down into categories.
To review the materials from today’s policy committee meeting, please click the following link provided here.