|
|  |
|
|
Corrections Cost-Cutting Measure Clears the Senate, Stalls in the Assembly
By Paul McIntosh, Executive Director
pmcintosh@counties.org
Yesterday, the Senate took up AB3X 14 (Arambula), a 239-page measure that would carry out a range of policy changes to achieve costs savings in the state’s correctional system. After lengthy debate and narrowly reaching the majority vote threshold (21-19), the Senate shipped the measure to the Assembly.
Many anticipated that the Assembly would have difficulty approving the Senate plan and, indeed, the afternoon and evening hours elapsed with the Assembly in negotiations to reformulate the package. In the end, the Assembly adjourned for the weekend without taking action on prison population and cost reduction plan.
Keep in mind the backdrop. The Legislature is facing rather significant pressure in finding sizeable savings in the prison budget. Recall, of course, that the Governor imposed a $400 million unallocated reduction to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget when the initial 2009–10 budget was enacted in February. The revised 2009–10 budget package approved in July carried out an additional cut of nearly $800 million — for a total cut of $1.2 billion. But the specific framework for applying these reductions was left for the Legislature’s determination when the houses regrouped after the summer recess. Before the Legislature returned, however, two events turned up the heat on these discussions. First, in early August, the federal three-judge panel in the prison overcrowding case issued its final opinion and order, which directs the state to reduce its prison population by approximately 40,000 over the next two years. Further, a riot at a CDCR reception center in Southern California resulted in injuries and significant facility damage, requiring the displacement of inmates, and aimed a spotlight on the difficult and explosive conditions that currently exist within the prison system.
The Legislature now is challenged to find an approach that will produce dramatic savings in one of the most expensive and controversial areas of state government operations. Below, we outline key elements of the Senate’s cost-savings plan, which incorporates many of the policy components that have been under consideration for some time:
- Alternative Custody Program - creates a new custody status in the community for three eligible populations: (1) those with less than 12 months left on sentences; (2) those aged 60 or older; and (3) the medically infirm/incapacitated; participants in the alternative custody program would be on home arrest, GPS, or some other type of enhanced monitoring.
- Adjustments to property crime thresholds – increases property crime thresholds for a variety of crimes primarily to account for inflation.
- Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund (CCPIF) – incorporates the provisions of SB 678, a measure by Senators Leno and Benoit sponsored by the chief probation officers and supported by CSAC, which – based on a county’s reduction in new prison admissions from among the felony probationer population – would direct state prison savings back to counties for investment in the adult probation system.
- Conversion of Wobblers to Misdemeanors – specifies that three specific offenses (check kiting, receiving stolen property, and petty theft with a prior) are misdemeanors and punishable by a term in county jail rather than state prison.
- California Public Safety Commission – creates a 13-member commission to review and develop a plan to revise sentencing guidelines by July 2012.
- Summary parole/banked caseloads – establishes the Parole Reentry Accountability Program that will focus parole resources on more high-risk offenders; lower to moderate risk offenders will be placed on banked caseloads, subject to search and seizure, but not eligible for parole revocation.
- Credit earning enhancements – incentivizes completion of rehabilitation, vocation, education, and other programs with provision of enhanced credits.
A number of other savings – including, among others, commutation of sentences for undocumented criminal inmates and reduction of prison rehabilitation programming – can be achieved by CDCR either with its own administrative powers or those granted to the Governor in the Constitution and are not included in AB3X 14
As the language of the cost-cutting measure came to light, various interests groups raised concerns or opposition about pieces and parts of the bill. CSAC has focused its attention — outlined in a coalition letter cosigned by a variety of county affiliates and individual counties — primarily on the alternative custody program based on a variety of practical and operational concerns. In addition to apprehensions as to whether the status of individuals on “alternative custody” would, by definition, make them ineligible for Medi-Cal, Medicare, and/or SSI/SSP, counties also were concerned about the process and protocol for handing off the elderly and medically infirm.
While at this point it is very difficult to confirm where the Assembly stands in terms of its approach to reducing the state corrections budget, we have heard from a variety of sources that the following elements remain under discussion and could be altered or eliminated: (1) the alternative custody program; (2) the conversion of wobblers to misdemeanors; (3) the Public Safety Commission; and (4) updating property crime thresholds.
CSAC will keep you apprised of developments upon the Legislature’s return next week.
Counties are well aware that shedding state prison population costs is only one part of the equation. These costs have to go somewhere. And whether direct or indirect, many of the financial pressures will come to counties. In addition to public safety considerations, there will surely be additional pressures to an already strained social service system (mental health, substance abuse, indigent health, and general assistance, as a few examples). We understand that many of these folks would be coming back to our communities in any event – more than 95 percent of all state prisoners eventually get out of prison and are released into the community at some point. However, an unanswered question at this point is the extent to which the collective impact of the corrections package may indeed result in significant inmate population reduction over two years (and, hence, more folks in our communities with potentially significant unmet housing, employment, and social service needs). We continue to work to advocate in the best interests of counties, recognizing that this package – in whole or in part – will have reverberations in our communities.
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION
|
|
|
