AB 109/117. Public Safety Realignment. AB 109. January, 2011 -Proposed in Governor’s budget April -Passed by legislature, signed by Governor June -Funding and clarifying legislation in AB 117, AB 118 with passage of State Budget
Public Safety Realignment
January, 2011 -Proposed in Governor’s budget
April -Passed by legislature, signed by Governor
June -Funding and clarifying legislation in AB 117, AB 118 with passage of State Budget
October 1 - -Public safety Realignment became operative
November 1 -Board approved Sonoma County Interim Realignment Plan
July, 2012 -Board approved Sonoma County Year 2 Realignment Plan
Coleman/Plata –prison overcrowding lawsuit
Recidivism rate from CDCR
Realignment does not result in early release of any currently sentenced felons.
Realignment does not transfer custody of any prisoner from State Prison directly to County Jail.
Rather, it changes jurisdiction of specified populations from state to local control, by changing sentencing and supervision requirements
Shifted responsibility of specific felons to county control
Established Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS)
Established new sentencing scheme
Tasked Community Corrections Partnerships (CCPs) with planning for, and implementation of local plans
These offenders are serving their sentences locally, sentenced under PC 1170(h).
Typically, sentence structured as some combination of local jail time, with period under Mandatory Supervision by Probation.
Current or prior offense must be:
Unless excluded by one of 70+ specified crimes
Probation supervises these offenders upon release from prison:
CDCR estimates of ADP for Sonoma County, at full implementation:
- PRCS - 164 supervised by Probation
- PRCS - 21 in County Jail on violation
- Non-non-non - 230 additional in the local system (some in County Jail; some on Mandatory Supervision, supervised by Probation)
-How many PRCS offenders will we receive?
-What will their needs and risk be?
-How will system charge, sentence non-non-nons?
-How many will be sentenced?
-How will they be sentenced?
Custody? Mandatory Supervision? Split?
-How will new laws impact Felony Probation?
-Impact of #s, credits, programming on County Jail ADP?
Realignment provides limited funding for each County.
How will local system react?
Can we impact this?
How must our criminal justice system function to handle many more offenders wisely, safely, and without losing money?
Total funding at state level
Calculated from state’s experience/model
Distribution among 58 counties
CSAC created formula for FY 2011/2012
Community Corrections Partnership recommends, BOS approves
Criminal Justice Master Plan
Belief in upstream initiatives
Culture of collaboration
Precipitant: Rising jail population, possible need for increased beds.
Projected cost: $300+ million
Quest for Plan B
Consultant spends year studying CJ system
Series of recommendations, fleshed out over a second year
Criminal Justice Master Plan approved by Board of Supervisors Jan, 2010
-Use of EBP, assess level of risk, resources follow risk, etc.
-Early Case Resolution Court
-Day Reporting Center
-Community Corrections Center
Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
14-member committee, created by SB 678 in 2009, predating Realignment
Realignment builds on SB 678, and defines CCP Executive committee (voting members)
Exec Comm Steve Freitas, Sheriff
Jill Ravitch, District Attorney
Jose Guillen, Court Executive Officer, as designee of Presiding Judge
Kathleen Pozzi, Interim Public Defender
Michael Kennedy, Director of Mental Health/AODS
Tom Schwedhelm, Chief of Police, Santa Rosa
Robert Ochs, Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Efren Carrillo, Board of Supervisors
Veronica Ferguson, CAO
Rene Chouteau, Superior Court Presiding Judge
Karen Fies, Director, Employment and Training, Human Services
Michael Gossman, CAO Analyst
Marlus Stewart , Director, DAAC
Gina Burk, Victim Witness Director, DA’s Office
Steven Herrington, Superintendent, Sonoma County Schools
Jerry Dunn, Interim Director of Human Services
Use of detention beds should be minimized, in a manner that is consistent with public safety, and the integrity of the criminal justice system;
The system, and decisions, should be risk-based;
Research tested methods should be used, as much as practicable.
County’s Criminal Justice Master Plan should be foundation
Programming should be provided for in-custody, as well as out-of-custody offenders
A Day Reporting Center should be a fundamental component of the Plan
Plan should be considered Interim
Carla Maus, Chair
Judge Dana Simonds, Chair
Michael Kennedy, Sheralynn Freitas, Co-Chairs
Data Management and Evaluation
Kim Gilmore, Chair
Realignment legislation assumes Counties will manage these populations differently than the State, through a combination of jail time, supervision, detention alternatives, and programming.
In fact, we must manage the new populations differently. Funding will not be sufficient if we follow the State, i.e.:
-lock up offenders for significant periods
-not address needs and risk
Detention alternatives mgmt 160,000
Data management 117,000
Criminal Justice Consultant 50,000
As of 1/25/12:
As of 1/25/2012:
As of 12/31/12:
As of 1/25/12:
-add 50 k for local LE assistance
-add .5 DA Gang Task Force Investigator
cognitive behavioral, anger mgmt, non-violent comm,
parenting, employment preparation, etc.
Criminal Justice Master Plan:
Pre-trial program necessary for County to fully realize benefit of Early Case Resolution Court
Early Case Resolution Court 2009 CGF
Day Reporting Center 2012 AB 109
Pre-trial program 2013 AB 109
Community Corrections Center ? SB 1022?
Interim Realignment Plan:
Directed Pre-trial study, with anticipated implementation in year 2.
Core system function providing universal front-end screening
Recommendations from Criminal Justice consultants:
-base on evidence-based “risk principle”
-develop locally derived pre-trial risk tool
-develop locally derived matrix - input from CJ stakeholders
-create hybrid program:
-Sheriff classification staff provide assessment
-Probation Officers provide supervision
-facilitates efficient case processing
-supports jail management
-risk-based decision making
-expedited access to available services
-increased effectiveness, by reducing pre-trial failure
CCP identified several areas that may deserve/need funding in year 2:
Additional unit in NCDF
Recommend use of carry-over funds ($1,201,744)
Recommend total contingency fund of $1,286,941, or 12.3% of total available funding for year 2.
-Day Reporting Center
-Use objective risk-assessment instrument
-Probation to use STRONG assessment in MADF
-Target higher-risk offender
-Mental health evaluation and services
-Substance abuse treatment
-Expedite entry into treatment
-Ensure treatment continuity
-Cognitive skills programs
-Build on data collection
Detention alternatives 717,407
Custody (including SERT) 1,104,970
Data management 135,200
Local Law Enforcement support 50,000
DA Gang Task Force Investigator 90,000
Criminal Justice Consultant 80,000
County Counsel 15,000
Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) working with:
Administrative Office of Courts
California State Association of Counties
State Sheriff’s Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Developing and implementing first phase baseline and ongoing data collection instruments
State Sheriffs collecting for each county:
Total booked, booked on flash, booked on new charge
Serving jail time for revocation
Number sentenced to local custody
Offenders released to sheriff’s alternative custody program
Number from alt custody program returned to custody
Booked on parole violation, new charges, serving local sentence
Chief Probation Officers collecting for each county:
Released from CDCR jail only
On warrant split sentences
New felony probation grants
-Protects public safety
-Is an upstream approach
-Is consistent with Criminal Justice Master Plan
-Is consistent with Sonoma County’s values
-Fits within anticipated resources