Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) and requires the county auditor to allocate moneys in the SLESA in a prescribed manner to counties and cities located within the county for the purpose of funding specified public safety programs.

This bill would appropriate $85,000,000 from the General Fund in the State Treasury to be allocated by the State Controller to each citys and city and countys SLESA. The bill would require the county auditor for a county to allocate moneys received from that appropriation to the county, each city within the county, and certain special districts, as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency that receives funds from that allocation to use the funds for front-line law enforcement activities, including drug interdiction, antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice programs. The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1745

Author:(Hadley) – As Introduced Ver:February 1, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill appropriates $85 million from the General Fund to be allocated by the State Controller (SCO), based on an existing population-based formula, to each city’s and city and county’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) for local agencies to use for front-line law enforcement activities, including drug interdiction, body-worn cameras, and peace officer training.

FISCAL EFFECT:

$85 million GF appropriation.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect our communities; AB 1745 is the first step to protect them and our community from the budget stress we and the recent U.S. DOJ decision have placed upon them.”
2. Background. AB 3229 (Brulte), Chapter 134/1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Compliant cities were allocated a proportionate share of COPS funds by the State, for the exclusive purpose of funding supplemental law enforcement services. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the Department of Finance. COPS funding was rolled into the 2011 realignment.
3. Federal DOJ has Resumed the Equitable Sharing Program: In December of 2015, The Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was suspending its equitable sharing program, in which local law enforcement agencies received money from the federal forfeiture actions of property seized from individuals. The program sent a portion of the money (up to 80%) from forfeitures directly to local law enforcement agencies that had been involved in the seizure. The author had estimated that the suspension of equitable sharing would result in approximately $85 million in lost revenue for California law enforcement agencies, based on 2014 receipts. However, DOJ has recently announced that it is resuming the equitable sharing program.

On March 28, 2016, Peter Carr, a spokesman for the Federal DOJ stated, "In the months since we made the difficult decision to defer equitable sharing payments because of the $1.2 billion rescinded from the Asset Forfeiture Fund, the financial solvency of the fund has improved to the point where it is no longer necessary to continue deferring equitable sharing payments."

To the extent that the loss of equitable sharing funds was the basis for requesting an $85 million appropriation to be used for local law enforcement, there is no longer a concern about that potential loss of revenue.

1. Support. According to the City of Torrance, “The State’s policy of shifting offenders into the jurisdiction of local law enforcement under Realignment to reduce State costs, coupled with recent federal DOJ decision to halt equitable funding from asset forfeitures, will result in the lack of adequate funding for recidivism reduction programs, drug and gang enforcement, training of officers, and purchasing necessary equipment or new technology like body cameras.”
   
2. Opposition. According to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, “Given California’s strapped budget, this costly measure is unjustified and unwarranted…Rather than pass this bill, the Legislature should direct its time and budget towards school support, teacher training, juvenile diversion, mental health services, shelters, and community support.”
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 144 (Cannella), of the 2012-2013 Legislative Session, would have appropriated $819,857,000 from the General Fund to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund. SB 144 was held in the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
      
   2. SB 1023 (Budget Committee), Chapter 43, Statutes of 2012, removed the reporting requirement to the State Controller for Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committees.
      

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1745

Author:(Hadley) – As Introduced Ver:February 1, 2016

SUMMARY:

Appropriates $85,000,000 from the General Fund in the State Treasury to be allocated by the State Controller to each city’s and city and county’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) for local agencies to use for front-line law enforcement activities, including drug interdiction, antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice programs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that the sum of eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund in the State Treasury for allocation by the State Controller to the counties for law enforcement purposes.
2. Requires the Controller to allocate those moneys to each SLESA, established by each county and city and county, consistent with the percentage schedule developed by the Department of Finance.
3. Mandates that in any fiscal year in which a county receives moneys to be expended, as specified, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys received as specified and deposited in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund.
4. Requires the specified SLESA related money to be allocated to the county and the cities within the county, as specified.
5. Requires moneys allocated to the county, as specified, to be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city, as specified to be deposited an SLESA established in the city treasury.
6. Mandates that funds received, as specified, shall be expended or encumbered, as specified, no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year.
7. Requires money allocated from a SLESA to a recipient entity to be expended exclusively to provide front-line law enforcement services and those moneys shall not be used by a local agency to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services, as defined.
8. Allows funding received as specified, is to be used for any of the following:
   1. Drug interdiction programs;
   2. Acquisition, maintenance, and training related to the use of body-worn cameras;
   3. Costs, including personnel costs, related to peace officer training, including training relating to the instruction in the handling of persons with developmental disabilities or mental illness, or both; and
   4. Other front-line law enforcement services.
9. States that in no event shall any moneys allocated from the county’s SLESA, as specified, be expended by a recipient agency to fund administrative overhead costs in excess of 0.5 percent of a recipient entity’s SLESA allocation, as specified, for that year.
10. Specifies that “front-line law enforcement services” includes antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice programs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies that there shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to specified law enforcement purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (a).)
   
2. States that in any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the county's SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund and allocated as follows:
   
   1. Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(1).)
      
   2. Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(2).)
      
   3. Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, other agencies and jurisdictions, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(3).)
      
   4. Moneys allocated to the county, as specified, shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city, as specified, shall be deposited in an SLESA established in the city treasury. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(3).)
      
   5. Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership, as specified. If a plan has been previously approved by the Corrections Standards Authority or, commencing July 1, 2012, by the Board of State and Community Corrections, the plan shall be reviewed and modified annually by the council. The plan or modified plan shall be approved by the county board of supervisors, and in the case of a city and county, the plan shall also be approved by the mayor. The plan or modified plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4).)
3. Specifies that for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, and specified agencies and jurisdictions receive money for SLESA, the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
   
   1. In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, as specified; (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(1).)
      
   2. In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city; and (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(2).)
      
   3. In the case of specified districts, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(3).)
      
4. States that for each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or specified district receives any money, as specified, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (d).)
   
5. Specifies that commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation as specified, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the specified purposes, and, subsequent to the allocation, as specified, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for specified purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (g).)
   
6. Provides that the Controller shall allocate the specified funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (g).)
7. Orders the county auditor to redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (j).)
   
8. States that except as specified, moneys allocated from a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to a recipient entity shall be expended exclusively to provide front line law enforcement services. (Gov. Code, § 30062, subd. (a).)
   
9. Specifies that moneys from SLESA shall not be transferred to, or intermingled with, the moneys in any other fund in the county or city treasury, except that moneys may be transferred from the SLESA to the county's or city's general fund to the extent necessary to facilitate the appropriation and expenditure of those transferred moneys in the manner required. (Gov. Code, § 30063.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect our communities; AB 1745 is the first step to protect them and our community from the budget stress we and the recent U.S. DOJ decision have placed upon them.”
   
2. Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA): Assembly Bill 3229 (Lockyer), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Compliant cities are allocated a proportionate share of COPS funds by the State, for the exclusive purpose of funding supplemental law enforcement services. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the California Department of Finance.
   
3. Federal DOJ has Resumed the Equitable Sharing Program: In December of 2015, The Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was suspending its equitable sharing program. Equitable sharing was a program in which local law enforcement agencies received money from the federal forfeiture actions of property seized from individuals. The program sent a portion of the money (up to 80%) from forfeitures directly to local law enforcement agencies that had been involved in the seizure. The author had estimated that the suspension of equitable sharing would result in approximately $85 million in lost revenue for California law enforcement agencies, based on 2014 receipts. However, DOJ has recently announced that it is resuming the equitable sharing program.
   
   On March 28, 2016, Peter Carr, a spokesman for the Federal DOJ stated, "In the months since we made the difficult decision to defer equitable sharing payments because of the $1.2 billion rescinded from the Asset Forfeiture Fund, the financial solvency of the fund has improved to the point where it is no longer necessary to continue deferring equitable sharing payments."
   
   To the extent that the loss of equitable sharing funds was the basis for requesting an $85 million appropriation to be used for local law enforcement, there is no longer a concern about that potential loss of revenue.
   
4. Law Enforcement Primarily Funded at the Local Level: Police protection constitutes less than 1% of direct expenditures by the state but accounts for 6.6% and 14.1%, at the county and city levels, respectively. Local police protection is funded by property, business, and sales taxes; federal and state grants; local fees and fines; and voter-approved increases in general and special sales taxes. For example, voters recently approved a three-quarter cent sales tax increase in the city of Stockton, with most of that money going toward hiring 120 police officers over the next three years. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies spent $15.6 billion for police protection, slightly more than the $14.8 billion the state and the counties spent on corrections. PPIC (2013), Policing in California (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1081)
   
5. Investing in Law Enforcement: A review of academic research by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Policy led to a conclusion that channeling resources to law enforcement as opposed to corrections was an effective allocation of resources. (Fact Sheet: Police, Prisons, and Public Safety in California, April, 2013, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Law Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley School of Law.)
   
   “There is mounting research that suggests that investing in police rather than expanding corrections is a more effective public safety strategy – a matter of prevention rather than reaction.” (Id.)
   

The Institute noted that police departments across the state had been shrinking and that a review of the literature suggested that larger numbers of police officers corresponded with lower levels of crime. (Id.)

1. Argument in Support: According to the City of Torrance, “Funding for local law enforcement programs has not kept pace with statewide growth in population or inflation. What was once funding of $489.9 million has increased to $549.1 million. However, based on increases in the State Appropriations Limit since 2006-07, funding should be 28.82% higher, or $85 million above current levels.
   
   “Additionally, a letter dated December 21, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice stated that, for the foreseeable future, the Department would be halting equitable funding payments to state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. For California law enforcement agencies, this will result in approximately $85 million in lost revenue based on 2014 receipts.
   
   “AB 1745, the BADGE Funding bill will appropriate $85 million from the State’s General Fund to fully fund law enforcement. The State’s policy of shifting offenders into the jurisdiction of local law enforcement under Realignment to reduce State costs, coupled with recent federal DOJ decision to halt equitable funding from asset forfeitures, will result in the lack of adequate funding for recidivism reduction programs, drug and gang enforcement, training of officers, and purchasing necessary equipment or new technology like body cameras.”
   
2. Argument in Opposition: According to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, “While we understand the seriousness of gang violence, drug addiction, and the importance of safe neighborhoods and schools being addressed by this bill; we believe that this bill would waste valuable resources that could be better spent. Law enforcement has a significant amount of power and resources. Given California’s strapped budget, this costly measure is unjustified and unwarranted. We at LSPC believe that if the Legislature seeks to fund a program designed for the welfare of communities, the resources proposed should be used to implement programs for the most vulnerable. There would be less crime if there were more resources for these underserved communities; AB 1745 is not going to do this. Instead, it is asking to allocate $85,000,000 to “front-line law enforcement services” that will continue criminalizing underserved communities and imprisoning them. Rather than pass this bill, the Legislature should direct its time and budget towards school support, teacher training, juvenile diversion, mental health services, shelters, and community support.”
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 144 (Cannella), of the 2012-2013 Legislative Session, would have appropriated $819,857,000 from the General Fund to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund. SB 144 was held in the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
      
   2. SB 1023 (Budget Committee), Chapter 43, Statutes of 2012, removed the reporting requirement to the State Controller for Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committees.
      
   3. AB 3229 (Brulte), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
California Peace Officers Association
City of Palos Verdes Estates
City of Rolling Hills Estates
City of Torrance
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Opposition

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Appropriates $85,000,000 from the General Fund in the State Treasury to be allocated by the State Controller to each city’s and city and county’s Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) for local agencies to use for front-line law enforcement activities, including drug interdiction, antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice programs. Specifically, this bill:

1. Specifies that the sum of eighty-five million dollars ($85,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund in the State Treasury for allocation by the State Controller to the counties for law enforcement purposes.
2. Requires the Controller to allocate those moneys to each SLESA, established by each county and city and county, consistent with the percentage schedule developed by the Department of Finance.
3. Mandates that in any fiscal year in which a county receives moneys to be expended, as specified, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys received as specified and deposited in the county’s SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund.
4. Requires the specified SLESA related money to be allocated to the county and the cities within the county, as specified.
5. Requires moneys allocated to the county, as specified, to be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city, as specified to be deposited an SLESA established in the city treasury.
6. Mandates that funds received, as specified, shall be expended or encumbered, as specified, no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year.
7. Requires money allocated from a SLESA to a recipient entity to be expended exclusively to provide front-line law enforcement services and those moneys shall not be used by a local agency to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services, as defined.
8. Allows funding received as specified, is to be used for any of the following:
   1. Drug interdiction programs;
   2. Acquisition, maintenance, and training related to the use of body-worn cameras;
   3. Costs, including personnel costs, related to peace officer training, including training relating to the instruction in the handling of persons with developmental disabilities or mental illness, or both; and
   4. Other front-line law enforcement services.
9. States that in no event shall any moneys allocated from the county’s SLESA, as specified, be expended by a recipient agency to fund administrative overhead costs in excess of 0.5 percent of a recipient entity’s SLESA allocation, as specified, for that year.
10. Specifies that “front-line law enforcement services” includes antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice programs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Specifies that there shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to specified law enforcement purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (a).)
   
2. States that in any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the county's SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund and allocated as follows:
   
   1. Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(1).)
      
   2. Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(2).)
      
   3. Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, other agencies and jurisdictions, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(3).)
      
   4. Moneys allocated to the county, as specified, shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city, as specified, shall be deposited in an SLESA established in the city treasury. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(3).)
      
   5. Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan, as specified. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership, as specified. If a plan has been previously approved by the Corrections Standards Authority or, commencing July 1, 2012, by the Board of State and Community Corrections, the plan shall be reviewed and modified annually by the council. The plan or modified plan shall be approved by the county board of supervisors, and in the case of a city and county, the plan shall also be approved by the mayor. The plan or modified plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(4).)
3. Specifies that for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, and specified agencies and jurisdictions receive money for SLESA, the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
   
   1. In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, as specified; (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(1).)
      
   2. In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city; and (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(2).)
      
   3. In the case of specified districts, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(3).)
      
4. States that for each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or specified district receives any money, as specified, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (d).)
   
5. Specifies that commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation as specified, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the specified purposes, and, subsequent to the allocation, as specified, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for specified purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (g).)
   
6. Provides that the Controller shall allocate the specified funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (g).)
7. Orders the county auditor to redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (j).)
   
8. States that except as specified, moneys allocated from a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to a recipient entity shall be expended exclusively to provide front line law enforcement services. (Gov. Code, § 30062, subd. (a).)
   
9. Specifies that moneys from SLESA shall not be transferred to, or intermingled with, the moneys in any other fund in the county or city treasury, except that moneys may be transferred from the SLESA to the county's or city's general fund to the extent necessary to facilitate the appropriation and expenditure of those transferred moneys in the manner required. (Gov. Code, § 30063.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect our communities; AB 1745 is the first step to protect them and our community from the budget stress we and the recent U.S. DOJ decision have placed upon them.”
   
2. Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA): Assembly Bill 3229 (Lockyer), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program. Compliant cities are allocated a proportionate share of COPS funds by the State, for the exclusive purpose of funding supplemental law enforcement services. Proportionate shares are based on population estimates determined by the California Department of Finance.
   
3. Loss of Federal Equitable Sharing Funds: In December of 2015, The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was suspending its equitable sharing program. Equitable sharing was a program in which local law enforcement agencies received money from the federal forfeiture actions of property seized from individuals. The program sent a portion of the money (up to 80%) from forfeitures directly to local law enforcement agencies that had been involved in the seizure.
   
   The Washington Post had an article on the Federal DOJ’s suspension of the equitable sharing program, shortly after the decision was made.
   

“The Department of Justice announced this week that it's suspending a controversial program that allows local police departments to keep a large portion of assets seized from citizens under federal law and funnel it into their own coffers.

“The 'equitable-sharing' program gives police the option of prosecuting asset forfeiture cases under federal instead of state law. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80 percent of assets they seize -- even if the people they took from are never charged with a crime.

“The DOJ is suspending payments under this program due to budget cuts included in the recent spending bill.” (www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-just-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-and-keep-it/)

It is unclear if, or when, DOJ will return to equitable sharing with local law enforcement agencies. The author estimates that the suspension of equitable sharing will result in approximately $85 million in lost revenue for California law enforcement agencies, based on 2014 receipts.

1. Law Enforcement Primarily Funded at the Local Level: Police protection constitutes less than 1% of direct expenditures by the state but accounts for 6.6% and 14.1%, at the county and city levels, respectively. Local police protection is funded by property, business, and sales taxes; federal and state grants; local fees and fines; and voter-approved increases in general and special sales taxes. For example, voters recently approved a three-quarter cent sales tax increase in the city of Stockton, with most of that money going toward hiring 120 police officers over the next three years. In 2010, California law enforcement agencies spent $15.6 billion for police protection, slightly more than the $14.8 billion the state and the counties spent on corrections. PPIC (2013), Policing in California (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1081)
   
2. Investing in Law Enforcement: A review of academic research by the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Policy led to a conclusion that channeling resources to law enforcement as opposed to corrections was an effective allocation of resources. (Fact Sheet: Police, Prisons, and Public Safety in California, April, 2013, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Law Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley School of Law.)
   
   “There is mounting research that suggests that investing in police rather than expanding corrections is a more effective public safety strategy – a matter of prevention rather than reaction.” (Id.)
   

The Institute noted that police departments across the state had been shrinking and that a review of the literature suggested that larger numbers of police officers corresponded with lower levels of crime. (Id.)

1. Argument in Support: According to the City of Torrance, “Funding for local law enforcement programs has not kept pace with statewide growth in population or inflation. What was once funding of $489.9 million has increased to $549.1 million. However, based on increases in the State Appropriations Limit since 2006-07, funding should be 28.82% higher, or $85 million above current levels.
   
   “Additionally, a letter dated December 21, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice stated that, for the foreseeable future, the Department would be halting equitable funding payments to state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. For California law enforcement agencies, this will result in approximately $85 million in lost revenue based on 2014 receipts.
   
   “AB 1745, the BADGE Funding bill will appropriate $85 million from the State’s General Fund to fully fund law enforcement. The State’s policy of shifting offenders into the jurisdiction of local law enforcement under Realignment to reduce State costs, coupled with recent federal DOJ decision to halt equitable funding from asset forfeitures, will result in the lack of adequate funding for recidivism reduction programs, drug and gang enforcement, training of officers, and purchasing necessary equipment or new technology like body cameras.”
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 144 (Cannella), of the 2012-2013 Legislative Session, would have appropriated $819,857,000 from the General Fund to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund. SB 144 was held in the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
      
   2. SB 1023 (Budget Committee), Chapter 43, Statutes of 2012, removed the reporting requirement to the State Controller for Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committees.
      
   3. AB 3229 (Brulte), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996, established the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Torrance

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: