Existing law, the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety and related statutes, requires that certain specified felonies be punished by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, and provides for postrelease community supervision by county officials for persons convicted of certain specified felonies upon release from prison or county jail. As part of the realignment of public safety services to local agencies, existing law establishes the Local Revenue Fund 2011 into which specified tax revenues are deposited and are continuously appropriated for the provision of public safety services, as defined.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to prepare a report, to be submitted to the Legislature on June 30, 2026, evaluating the results of Assembly Bill 109 of the 201112 Regular Session over the previous 10 years. This bill would require the report to contain specified data, including the amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, information on sentencing practices, the impact on the county jail population, information on postrelease community supervision practices, and recidivism outcomes.

Existing law, the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety and related statutes, requires that certain specified felonies be punished by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, and provides for postrelease community supervision by county officials for persons convicted of certain specified felonies upon release from prison or county jail. As part of the realignment of public safety services to local agencies, existing law establishes the Local Revenue Fund 2011 into which specified tax revenues are deposited and are continuously appropriated for the provision of public safety services, as defined.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to prepare a report, to be submitted to the Legislature on June 30, 2026, evaluating the results of Assembly Bill 109 of the 201112 Regular Session over the previous 10 years. This bill would require the report to contain specified data, including the amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, information on sentencing practices, the impact on the county jail population, information on postrelease community supervision practices, and recidivism outcomes.

Existing law, the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety and related statutes, requires that certain specified felonies be punished by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, and provides for postrelease community supervision by county officials for persons convicted of certain specified felonies upon release from prison or county jail. As part of the realignment of public safety services to local agencies, existing law establishes the Local Revenue Fund 2011 into which specified tax revenues are deposited and are continuously appropriated for the provision of public safety services, as defined.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to prepare a report, to be submitted to the Legislature on January 1, June 30, 2026, evaluating the results of Assembly Bill 109 of the 201112 Regular Session over the previous 10 years. This bill would require the report to contain specified data, including rehabilitation programming options. the amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, information on sentencing practices, the impact on the county jail population, information on postrelease community supervision practices, and recidivism outcomes.

Existing law, the 2011 Realignment Legislation addressing public safety and related statutes, requires that certain specified felonies be punished by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, and provides for postrelease community supervision by county officials for persons convicted of certain specified felonies upon release from prison or county jail. As part of the realignment of public safety services to local agencies, existing law establishes the Local Revenue Fund 2011 into which specified tax revenues are deposited and are continuously appropriated for the provision of public safety services, as defined.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to prepare a report, to be submitted to the Legislature on January 1, 2026, evaluating the results of Assembly Bill 109 of the 201112 Regular Session over the previous 10 years. This bill would require the report to contain specified data, including rehabilitation programming options.

CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1080

Author: Ta (R), et al.

Amended: 3/23/23 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/6/23

AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal justice realignment

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a report that includes specified data, to be submitted to the Legislature on June 30, 2030, evaluating the results of the 2011 criminal justice realignment act over the previous 10 years.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines a “felony” as “a crime that is punishable with death, by imprisonment in the state prison, or notwithstanding any other provision of law, by imprisonment in a county jail under [criminal justice realignment].” (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (a).)
2. States that the punishment for a felony not otherwise prescribed is 16 months, or two or three years in state prison, unless the offense is punishable in the county jail pursuant to realignment. (Pen. Code, § 18, subd. (a).)
3. Prohibits a term of more than one year in the county jail except for executed felony sentences under realignment. (Pen. Code, §19.2.)
4. Specifies where the defendant has a prior or current felony conviction for a serious felony, or a prior or current conviction for a violent felony, has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a serious felony or a violent felony, or is required to register as a sex offender, or is convicted of a crime and as part of the sentence a specified enhancement is imposed, an executed sentence for a felony shall be served in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(3).)
5. Provides that a felony not specified in the above provision shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in the county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subds. (h)(1) & (2).)
6. Designates about 70 felonies as state-prison offenses. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 86 [bribes involving member of the Legislature], 92 [bribes involving judicial officer or juror], 191.5, subd. I(1) [gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated], 266i [pandering].)
7. Requires the court to suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term of a county-jail-eligible felony sentence for a period selected at the court’s discretion, unless the court finds that in the interests of justice it is not appropriate in a particular case. The suspended part of the sentence is known as mandatory supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5).)
8. Requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):
   1. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code Section 1192.7, subdivision I;
   2. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code Section 667.5, subdivision I;
   3. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
   4. A high risk sex offender;
   5. A mentally disordered offender;
   6. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
   7. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) & (i).)
9. Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), & 3451.)
10. Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011, to remain under the supervision of the CDCR until jurisdiction is terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
11. States that the parole period for most offenders is three years, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (b).)
12. Limits the term for PRCS to three years. (Pen. Code, § 3451, subd. (a).)
13. Provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of parole or PRCS, including “flash incarceration” for up to 10 days. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (d) & 3454.)
14. Specifies that if parole or PRCS is revoked, the offender may be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (g) & 3455, subd. (d).)

This bill:

1. Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature by June 30, 2030, evaluating the results of criminal justice realignment over the previous 10 years.
2. Requires the report to include, but not be limited to, the following:
   1. The amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, including, but not limited to, the following categories: (i) funding received by department or agency; (i) all types of facilities construction; (iii) the number and type of additional personnel; (iv) rehabilitative programming; and (v) any other services.
   2. Information on sentencing practices, including the use of straight sentencing, split sentencing, probation, diversion, and any other alternatives to custody.
   3. The impact on the county jail population as based on changes to the average monthly jail population, whether there were changes in jail release policies, and whether the county jail was under any court-ordered population cap;
   4. Information on PRCS practices, including caseload of probation officers, responses to supervision violations, including describing the sanctions used and particularly the use of flash incarceration and programming and services offered.
   5. Recidivism outcomes as defined by rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for offenders sentenced to county jail for a realigned felony, and those released on PRCS.
3. States that the report may be based on data from every county, or alternatively, a multicounty study using data from at least 15 counties representative of the state.

Comments

According to the author, “AB 1080 will provide the Legislature with a much-needed report on the successes and shortcomings of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011), also known as public safety realignment. My uncontroversial legislation would direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the previous years of AB 109, and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programing options, and funding and staffing for local counties. Given the lack of thorough research on realignment, AB 1080 would provide the Legislature with a proper review of this important legislation, especially as this body considers other public safety measures.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/27/23)

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California District Attorneys Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Murrieta Police Officers' Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Upland Police Officers Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/27/23)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association:

The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association are in support AB 1080 which direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a report evaluating the results of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011). The report would provide a comprehensive analysis of the previous ten years of AB 109 and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programming options, and funding and staffing for local counties.

AB 1080 would solve this issue, and provide the Legislature with a proper review of AB 109 to better understand realignment’s successes and shortcomings. AB 1080 would provide a full overview of correctional strategies, prison overcrowding, strain at the county level, and more relevant data that can inform future legislation.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jim Patterson

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

6/28/23 11:12:27

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 1080 Hearing Date: June 6, 2023

Subject: Criminal justice realignment

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Ch. 15, Stats. 2011

Support: Arcadia Police Officers' Association; Burbank Police Officers' Association; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California District Attorneys Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers' Association; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County; Fullerton Police Officers' Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers' Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC); Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Pomona Police Officers' Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Upland Police Officers Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a report that includes specified data, to be submitted to the Legislature on June 30, 2030, evaluating the results of the 2011 criminal justice realignment act over the previous 10 years.

Existing law defines a “felony” as “a crime that is punishable with death, by imprisonment in the state prison, or notwithstanding any other provision of law, by imprisonment in a county jail under [criminal justice realignment].” (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that the punishment for a felony not otherwise prescribed is 16 months, or two or three years in state prison, unless the offense is punishable in the county jail pursuant to realignment. (Pen. Code, § 18, subd. (a).)

Existing law prohibits a term of more than one year in the county jail except for executed felony sentences under realignment. (Pen. Code, §19.2.)

Existing law specifies where the defendant has a prior or current felony conviction for a serious felony, or a prior or current conviction for a violent felony, has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a serious felony or a violent felony, or is required to register as a sex offender, or is convicted of a crime and as part of the sentence a specified enhancement is imposed, an executed sentence for a felony shall be served in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(3).)

Existing law provides that a felony not specified in the above provision shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in the county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subds. (h)(1) & (2).)

Existing law designates about 70 felonies as state-prison offenses. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 86 [bribes involving member of the Legislature], 92 [bribes involving judicial officer or juror], 191.5, subd. I(1) [gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated], 266i [pandering].)

Existing law requires the court to suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term of a county-jail-eligible felony sentence for a period selected at the court’s discretion, unless the court finds that in the interests of justice it is not appropriate in a particular case. The suspended part of the sentence is known as mandatory supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5).)

Existing law requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):

• A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision I;
  
• A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision I;
  
• A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
  
• A high risk sex offender;
  
• A mentally disordered offender;
  
• A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
• A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) & (i).)

Existing law requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), & 3451.)

Existing law requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain under the supervision of the CDCR until jurisdiction is terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)

Existing law states that the parole period for most offenders is three years, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (b).)

Existing law limits the term for PRCS to three years. (Pen. Code, § 3451, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of parole or PRCS, including “flash incarceration” for up to 10 days. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (d) & 3454.)

Existing law specifies that if parole or PRCS is revoked, the offender may be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (g) & 3455, subd. (d).)

This bill requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature by June 30, 2030 evaluating the results of criminal justice realignment over the previous 10 years.

This bill requires the report to include, but not be limited to, the following:

• The amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, including, but not limited to, the following categories: (1) funding received by department or agency; (2) all types of facilities construction; (3) the number and type of additional personnel; (5) rehabilitative programming; and (5) any other services.
• Information on sentencing practices, including the use of straight sentencing, split sentencing, probation, diversion, and any other alternatives to custody.
• The impact on the county jail population as based on changes to the average monthly jail population, whether there were changes in jail release policies, and whether the county jail was under any court-ordered population cap;
• Information on PRCS practices, including caseload of probation officers, responses to supervision violations, including describing the sanctions used and particularly the use of flash incarceration and programming and services offered.
• Recidivism outcomes as defined by rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for offenders sentenced to county jail for a realigned felony, and those released on PRCS.

This bill states that the report may be based on data from every county, or alternatively, a multicounty study using data from at least 15 counties representative of the state.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

AB 1080 will provide the Legislature with a much-needed report on the successes and shortcomings of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011), also known as public safety realignment. My uncontroversial legislation would direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the previous years of AB 109, and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programing options, and funding and staffing for local counties. Given the lack of thorough research on realignment, AB 1080 would provide the Legislature with a proper review of this important legislation, especially as this body considers other public safety measures.

1. Background: Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011

After decades of prison population growth, California’s prisons were faced with severe overcrowding in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Lawsuits against the state alleging inadequate mental health and medical care resulted in the appointment of a federal receiver to oversee these functions within the state prisons. In 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued a ruling ordering California to reduce its prison population to from 190% to 137.5% of design capacity because overcrowding was the primary reason that CDCR was unable to provide inmates with constitutionally adequate healthcare. (Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.) Given the prison population at the time of the ruling, the necessary reduction amounted to almost 40,000 inmates. The United State Supreme Court upheld the decision, declaring that “without a reduction in overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill” inmates in California’s prisons. (Brown v. Plata (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1939; 179 L.Ed.2d 969, 999.)

The potential indiscriminate release of tens of thousands of persons from prison raised significant public safety concerns so the state enacted AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011, which went into effect on October 1, 2011, to realign correctional and supervisorial duties of low-level felonies from the state to counties. The law aimed to reduce prison population by redefining certain felonies, depending on the crime itself and the criminal history of the offender, as eligible for imprisonment in a county jail rather than state prison. Additionally, certain felony offenders became subject to local supervision instead of state supervision upon release.

• 1. Jail-Eligible Felonies

Prior to realignment, a felony was a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in state prison. Effective October 1, 2011, criminal justice realignment created a new classification of felonies that are punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, as specified, depending upon the criminal history of the offender. This change, contained in subdivision (h) of Penal Code section 1170, applies only to criminal statutes which have been expressly amended to provide for a felony jail term where otherwise allowable.

Certain felony offenders are categorically prohibited from serving an executed felony sentence in county jail. The following persons are statutorily ineligible to serve any executed felony sentence in county jail:

• The defendant has a prior or current felony conviction for:
• a serious felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or
• a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5;
• The defendant has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a serious or violent felony in California, as specified;
• The defendant is required to register as a sex offender; or
• The defendant is convicted of a crime and as part of the sentence receives an aggravated theft enhancement, as specified.

In addition to the serious, violent, registerable offenses eligible for state prison incarceration, there are approximately 70 felonies which have been specifically excluded from eligibility for local custody and which require a state prison sentence.

For convicted felony offenders subject to confinement in a county jail, courts are authorized to impose the felony sentence to commit a defendant to county jail as follows:

• For a full term in custody as determined in accordance with the applicable sentencing law; or,
• For a term as determined in accordance with the applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a part of the sentence during which time the defendant shall be supervised on mandatory supervision by county probation in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally applicable to persons placed on probation, for the remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed by the court.
  1. Post-Release Supervision

Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by state parole agents. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated a condition of parole, they would have a revocation proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings. If parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state prison for violating parole.

Realignment shifted the supervision of some individuals released from prison from state parole agents to PRCS provided by local probation departments. Parole under state supervision for persons released from prison is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) & (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other individuals released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)

Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation hearings. As of July 1, 2013, the trial courts assumed responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under the jurisdiction of CDCR. Moreover, intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, also became available for a person on supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).)

Realignment also changed where a person is incarcerated for violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision; persons serve the revocation term in county jail. (Pen. Code, §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3458.) There is a 180-day limit to incarceration. (Pen. Code, §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3455, subd. (c).) The only offenders who are eligible for return to prison for violating parole are life-term parolees paroled pursuant to Penal Code section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term sex offenses).

After the enactment of criminal justice realignment, Proposition 30 (approved by California voters in 2012), provided that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. To the extent local agencies were not provided with funding under 2011 Realignment to complete these reporting activities, funding may be required from the state to support these local activities.

1. Impact of Criminal Justice Realignment

There have been several reports published by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) which studied the impacts of realignment. For example, PPIC produced a report evaluating the impact of Realignment after the first several years. (https://www.ppic.org/publication/public-safety-realignment-impacts-so-far/.) Subsequently, in 2017, PPIC produced a report on Realignment and Recidivism. (https://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/) In 2015, the RAND Corporation studied county responses to realignment in 12 counties. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR872.html [as of March 16, 2023].)

As noted by PPIC, while 2011 criminal justice realignment did reduce the prison population as intended, the reduction was not enough to meet the court-ordered target; the target was finally met after several subsequent criminal justice reforms were enacted:

Realignment substantially reduced the prison population, but almost all of the decline took place during the first year and was not enough to meet the judicial target. By September 2012, the prison population had fallen by about 27,400 and the institutional population, including all inmates housed in California Department of Corrections (CDCR) facilities subject to the court order, had dropped to 150.5 percent of capacity. The population then leveled off and began to rise slightly. Increased use of contract beds (that is, inmates housed in non-CDCR facilities operated by private and public entities) and the opening of a health care facility in Stockton helped the state move closer to the target. In November 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, revising the state’s three-strikes law to impose a life sentence on a third felony conviction only in cases of serious or violent crimes, further reducing the number of convicts serving time in state prisons. By October 2014, three years into realignment, the prison population stood at 140.9 percent of capacity, still roughly 2,850 inmates above the mandated target. The prison population finally fell below the target after state voters passed Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many drug and property offenses. Between November 2014 and August 2015, the prison population fell by almost 7,800. It has been below the target since January 2015.

(PPIC, Public Safety Realignment Impacts So Far (Sept. 2015) <https://www.ppic.org/publication/public-safety-realignment-impacts-so-far/> [as of May 30, 2023].) The PPIC also reported on crime rates and recidivism rates post-realignment. Their findings show that realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. (Ibid.) Additionally, overall recidivism rates for felony offenders declined and individuals released from prison had the highest reconviction rate. (PPIC, Recidivism of Felony Offenders in California (June 2019) <https://www.ppic.org/publication/recidivism-of-felony-offenders-in-california/> [as of May 30, 2023].)

While there have been several relevant studies on the impacts of criminal justice realignment, there does not seem to be a report evaluating its longer term effects. This bill would require the LAO to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the results of criminal justice realignment over the previous 10 years, as specified. This bill would require the report to include data on funding, sentencing practices, jail population and recidivism rates, among other things. This data can help the Legislature in identifying best practices and what areas may need improvement.

1. Argument in Support

According to the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association:

The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association are in support AB 1080 which direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a report evaluating the results of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011). The report would provide a comprehensive analysis of the previous ten years of AB 109 and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programming options, and funding and staffing for local counties.

AB 1080 would solve this issue, and provide the Legislature with a proper review of AB 109 to better understand realignment’s successes and shortcomings. AB 1080 would provide a full overview of correctional strategies, prison overcrowding, strain at the county level, and more relevant data that can inform future legislation.

-- END –

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1080

Author:(Ta) – As Amended Ver:March 23, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare a report evaluating the results of Assembly Bill 109 of the 2011-12 Regular Session, which implemented criminal justice realignment. The bill requires the LAO to submit its report to the Legislature by June 30, 2026.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of an unknown but likely absorbable amount to the LAO to prepare the report. However, this committee sees many bills that require the LAO to prepare reports. Generally, a request to prepare an individual report would not generate significant new workload for the LAO. But taken together, these proposes strain the LAO’s ability to fulfill existing or future legislative mandates and requests, as the LAO’s budget is subject to the Legislature’s constitutional spending cap.
2. To the extent that counties must provide data about their funding and operations to the LAO so it can complete its report, there may be additional, potentially reimbursable costs of uncertain amounts. The extent of potential reimbursement would be determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

AB 1080 will provide the Legislature with a much-needed report on the successes and shortcomings of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011), also known as public safety realignment. My uncontroversial legislation would direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the previous years of AB 109, and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programing options, and funding and staffing for local counties. Given the lack of thorough research on realignment, AB 1080 would provide the Legislature with a proper review of this important legislation, especially as this body considers other public safety measures.

1. Criminal Justice Realignment. Criminal justice realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities from state agencies to counties. (AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011.) After many years of significant growth to the state prison population, California’s prisons were severely overcrowded in the 2000s, leading to class action litigation against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) over insufficient mental and medical health care provided in state prisons. In 2009, a federal court found that prison overcrowding was the primary reason that CDCR was unable to provide constitutionally sufficient prison health care, and ordered the state to significantly reduce its prison population. AB 109 was enacted in response to this court mandate. That bill allowed certain lower-level felony offenders to serve their sentence in county jail rather than state prison, diverted certain offenders to county probation supervision after their incarceration, and allowed people who violate certain conditions of their parole to receive jail sentences or community alternatives, rather than returning them to state prison.

This bill would require the LAO to prepare a report evaluating the effects of criminal justice realignment including, but not limited to, evaluation of the allocation of county funding, sentencing practices, impact on county jail populations, post-release community supervision practices, and recidivism among certain offenders. As noted in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety’s analysis of this bill, the effects of criminal justice realignment have been studied previously by the Public Policy Institute of California, the RAND Corporation, and the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. However, there does not appear to be a long-term, comprehensive study of the changes made by AB 109 in the decade since its implementation.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Chief Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1080

Author:(Ta) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2023

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to prepare a report evaluating the results of the Criminal Justice Realignment Legislation over the previous ten years. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that the LAO report evaluating Realignment must include, but is not limited to, the following:
   
   1. The amount of funding received per county and how that funding was allocated, including but not limited to, the following categories: funding received by department or agency; all types of facilities construction; the number and type of additional personnel; rehabilitative programming; and, any other services.
      
   2. Information on sentencing practices, including the use of straight sentencing, split sentencing, probation, diversion, and any other alternatives to custody.
      
   3. The impact on the county jail population, as based on changes to the average monthly jail population, whether there were changes in jail release policies, and whether the county jail was under any court-ordered population cap.
      
   4. Information on post-release community supervision practices, including caseload of probation officers; responses to supervision violations, describing the sanctions used and particularly the use of flash incarceration; and programming and services offered.
      
   5. Recidivism outcomes, as defined by rearrest and reconviction rates after release from custody for offenders sentenced under realignment, and those released on post-release community supervision.
      
2. Provides that the report may be based on data from every county, or alternatively, a multi-county study using data from at least 15 counties representative of the state.
   
3. Establishes a submission date for the report of June 30, 2026.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a "felony" as "a crime that is punishable with death, by imprisonment in the state prison, or notwithstanding any other provision of law, by imprisonment in a county jail under [criminal justice realignment]." (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (a).)
   
2. States that the punishment for a felony not otherwise prescribed is 16 months, or two or three years in state prison, unless the offense is punishable in the county jail pursuant to realignment. (Pen. Code, § 18, subd. (a).)
   
3. Prohibits a term of more than one year in the county jail except for executed felony sentences under realignment. (Pen. Code, §19.2.)
   
4. Specifies where the defendant has a prior or current felony conviction for a serious felony, or a prior or current conviction for a violent felony, has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a serious felony or a violent felony, or is required to register as a sex offender, or is convicted of a crime and as part of the sentence a specified enhancement is imposed, an executed sentence for a felony shall be served in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(3).)
   
5. Provides that a felony not specified in the above provision shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in the county jail. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subds. (h)(1) & (2).)
   
6. Provides that for purposes of county-jail eligibility, any allegation that a defendant is eligible for state prison due to a prior or current conviction, sentence enhancement, or because the defendant is required to register as a sex offender, is not subject to dismissal under Penal Code section 1385. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (f).)
   
7. Designates about 70 felonies as state-prison offenses. (See e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 86 [bribes involving member of the Legislature], 92 [bribes involving judicial officer or juror], 191.5, subd. (c)(1) [gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated], 266i [pandering].)
   
8. Requires the court to suspend execution of a concluding portion of the term of a county-jail-eligible felony sentence for a period selected at the court’s discretion, unless the court finds that in the interests of justice it is not appropriate in a particular case. The suspended part of the sentence is known as mandatory supervision. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5).)
   
9. Requires the following persons released from prison prior to, or on or after July 1, 2013, be subject to parole under the supervision of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):
   
   1. A person who committed a serious felony listed in Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c);
      
   2. A person who committed a violent felony listed in Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c);
      
   3. A person serving a Three-Strikes sentence;
      
   4. A high risk sex offender;
      
   5. A mentally disordered offender;
      
   6. A person required to register as a sex offender and subject to a parole term exceeding three years at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released; and,
      
   7. A person subject to lifetime parole at the time of the commission of the offense for which he or she is being released. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subds. (a) & (i).)
      
10. Requires all other offenders released from prison to be placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS) under the supervision of a county agency, such as a probation department. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), & 3451.)
    
11. Requires all persons paroled before October 1, 2011 to remain under the supervision of the CDCR until jurisdiction is terminated by operation of law or until parole is discharged. (Pen. Code, § 3000.09.)
    
12. States that the parole period for most offenders is three years, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 3000, subd. (b).)
    
13. Limits the term for PRCS to three years. (Pen. Code, § 3451, subd. (a).)
    
14. Provides for intermediate sanctions for violating the terms of parole or PRCS, including "flash incarceration" for up to 10 days. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (d) & 3454.)
    
15. Specifies that if parole or PRCS is revoked, the offender may be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days for each custodial sanction. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (g) & 3455, subd. (d).)
    

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 1080 will provide the Legislature with a much-needed report on the successes and shortcomings of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, 2011), also known as public safety realignment. My uncontroversial legislation would direct the Legislative Analyst’s Office to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the previous years of AB 109, and would explore rehabilitation data, rehabilitation programing options, and funding and staffing for local counties. Given the lack of thorough research on realignment, AB 1080 would provide the Legislature with a proper review of this important legislation, especially as this body considers other public safety measures.”
2. Criminal Justice Realignment: AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011, enacted Criminal Justice Realignment which, among other things, limited which felons could be sent to state prison, required that more felons serve their sentences in county jails, and affected parole supervision after release from custody. The purposes of Criminal Justice Realignment include reducing recidivism by facilitating the reintegration of low-level offenders into society, and managing incarcerated person more cost-effectively. (See Pen. Code, § 17.5, subd. (a)(5).) However, although not stated in the legislation, one of the main underlying reasons for realignment was concerns for prison overcrowding. In November 2006, plaintiffs in two class action lawsuits— Plata v. Brown (involving CDCR medical care) and Coleman v. Brown (involving CDCR mental health care)— filed motions for the courts to convene a three-judge panel pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs argued that persistent overcrowding in the state's prison system was preventing CDCR from delivering constitutionally adequate health care to incarcerated persons. The three-judge panel declared that overcrowding in the state's prison system was the primary reason that CDCR was unable to provide incarcerated persons with constitutionally adequate health care. In January 2010, the three-judge panel issued its final ruling ordering the State of California to reduce its prison population by approximately 50,000 individuals in the next two years. (Coleman/Plata vs. Schwarzenegger (2010) No. Civ S-90-0520 LKK JFM P/NO. C01-1351 THE.)

The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the three-judge panel, declaring that “without a reduction in overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill” persons in California's prisons. (Brown v. Plata (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1939.) Without changes to how the prison population was managed, the court decisions could have led to arbitrary release of tens of thousands of people in prison.

“While the state has undergone various changes to reduce overcrowding prior to the passage of the realignment legislation-including transferring inmates to out-of-state contract facilities, construction of new facilities, and various statutory changes to reduce the prison population-the realignment of adult offenders is the most significant change undertaken to reduce overcrowding.” (See LAO report: Refocusing CDCR After the 2011 Realignment, Feb. 23, 2012, p.3, The 2012-13 Budget: Refocusing CDCR After The 2011 Realignment (ca.gov).)

To this end, realignment did two things: it changed the custodial setting where many persons convicted of a felony would serve their sentence, and it changed the repercussions for violations of supervision after release from custody.

• 1. Changes to Imposition of Criminal Sentences and Incarceration: Prior to realignment, most felony sentences were served in state prison. A felony was defined as "a crime that is punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state prison." Realignment created two classifications of felonies: those punishable in county jail and those punishable in state prison.
     
     Realignment also limited which felons could be sent to state prison, thus requiring that more felons serve their sentences in county jails. The law applies to qualified defendants who commit qualifying offenses and who are sentenced on or after October 1, 2011. Specifically, sentences to state prison are now mainly limited to registered sex offenders and individuals with a current, or prior, serious or violent offense. In addition to the serious, violent, registerable offenses eligible for state prison incarceration, there are approximately 70 felonies which have been specifically excluded from eligibility for local custody and which require a state prison sentence.
     
     Besides changing the place of incarceration for many defendants, realignment also created the option of having “split sentences,” with part of the sentence being served in the county jail, and the remaining portion being served on supervised release (a.k.a. mandatory supervision). This option only applies to felonies punishable in county jail.
     Finally, it should be noted that the option for felony probation in appropriate cases, as well as the probation revocation process, remained unchanged.
  2. Changes to Parole As a Result of Realignment: Prior to realignment, individuals released from prison were placed on parole and supervised in the community by parole agents of CDCR. If it was alleged that a parolee had violated a condition of parole, they would have a revocation proceeding before the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). If parole was revoked, the offender would be returned to state prison for violating parole.
     
     Realignment shifted the supervision of some individuals released from prison from CDCR parole agents to local probation departments. Parole under the jurisdiction of CDCR for persons released from prison is limited to those defendants whose term was for a serious or violent felony; were serving a Three-Strikes sentence; are classified as high-risk sex offenders; who are required to undergo treatment as mentally disordered offenders; or who, while on certain paroles, commit new offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subds. (a) & (c), and 3451, subd. (b).) All other individuals released from prison are subject to up to three years of PRCS under local supervision. (Pen. Code, §§ 3000.08, subd. (b), and 3451, subd. (a).)
     
     Additionally, realignment changed the process for revocation hearings. As of July 1, 2013, the trial courts assumed responsibility for holding all revocation hearings for those individuals who remain under the jurisdiction of CDCR. Moreover, intermediate sanctions, including flash incarceration, also became available for a person on supervision. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (d).)
     
     Realignment also changed where an offender is incarcerated for violating parole or PRCS. Most individuals can no longer be returned to state prison for violating a term of supervision; offenders serve the revocation term in county jail. (Pen. Code, §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3458.) There is a 180-day limit to incarceration. (Pen. Code, §§ 3056, subd. (a), and 3455, subd. (c).) The only offenders who are eligible for return to prison for violating parole are life-term parolees paroled pursuant to Penal Code section 3000.1 (e.g., murderers, specific life term sex offenses).
     

1. Evaluating Realignment: There have been several reports published by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) which studied the impacts of realignment. For example, PPIC produced a report evaluating the impact of Realignment after the first several years. (https://www.ppic.org/publication/public-safety-realignment-impacts-so-far/.) Subsequently, in 2017, PPIC produced a report on Realignment and Recidivism. (https://www.ppic.org/publication/realignment-and-recidivism-in-california/) In 2015, the RAND Corporation studied county responses to realignment in 12 counties. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR872.html [as of March 16, 2023].) But there does not seem to be a report evaluating the longer term effects of realignment.
   
   It is likely that we will never know for sure what those effects may have been because there have been other significant criminal justice reforms not foreseen at the time which would have affected the impact of realignment. For example, Proposition 47, passed by the voters in November 2014 that reduced low-level drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
   
   In addition to criminal justice reforms, there was the completely unanticipated effect of a worldwide pandemic, COVID-19. On March 24, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive order directing CDCR to temporarily halt the intake and/or transfer of convicted adult offenders and youth into the state’s 35 prisons and four youth correctional facilities in order to reduce the risks of COVID-19 in correctional settings. Those incarcerated individuals and youth were to remain in county custody for 30 days, with the possibility of extension. ( https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/24/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-on-state-prisons-and-juvenile-facilities-in-response-to-the-covid-19-outbreak/) Extensions of the suspension of intake did indeed happen. This of course affected jail populations because defendants who had been sentenced to prison could not be transferred. Meanwhile, both state and local correctional facilities had COVID-19 outbreaks, and released incarcerated individuals early. (See e.g. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/frequently-asked-questions-expedited-releases/; https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-16/la-jail-population-arrests-down-amid-coronavirus.) In addition, the Judicial Council issued a series of emergency orders which delayed arraignments, preliminary hearings, and jury trials statewide. The Judicial Council also adopted a statewide COVID-19 emergency bail schedule that set bail at $0 for most people accused–but not yet tried–of misdemeanors and lower-level felonies. These orders also affected jail populations because a significant number of the individuals held in jails are pre-trial detainees. (https://www.courts.ca.gov/43820.htm ) All of these preventative measures will affect an evaluation of realignment.
   
   Because of the pandemic, coupled with new criminal justice reforms, it may never be possible to know the true effects of criminal justice realignment. Nevertheless, it is arguably beneficial to take a long-term look at realignment policies and their effects. If nothing else, since realignment provided the counties with flexibility not only on how to treat criminal offenders but also on how to spend their funding, such a study will provide counties with a tool to learn best practices that they might adopt.
   
   This bill would require the LAO to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the results of criminal justice realignment over the previous 10 years, as specified.
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “AB 109 was implemented to reduce the prison population while encouraging rehabilitative programming for offenders to reduce recidivism. Evaluating the effectiveness of statewide policies is critical to a well-functioning democracy. It opens the lines of communication on important issues and educates our communities on issues they care about. It allows us to celebrate policies and programs that are excelling, while providing an opportunity to reform programs that are not working. Such transparency is also key to building the public trust and allows community members to feel like they have an opportunity to be informed and participate in the public process.

“AB 109, in conjunction with other related policies that have followed, continue to be a source of speculation and questions within the communities we serve. Reports like this one can help answer those questions, while reaffirming that policy makers are continuously evaluating policy implications.

“As over a decade has passed since the implementation of AB 109, it is time to assess the results of the legislation both statewide and locally. This policy was the beginning of many programs implemented at the state level to reduce the state prison population, while implementing rehabilitation-driven policies. An examination of AB 109 can illuminate program successes for our communities, and identify room for improvement.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1783 (Gallagher), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, as introduced, would have required the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who receive a felony sentence punishable by imprisonment in a county or who are placed on PRCS, as specified. AB 1783 was amended into an unrelated subject matter.
      
   2. AB 152 (Gallagher) of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have required, commencing July 1, 2018, BSCC, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced and released on or after July 1, 2018, pursuant to 2011 realignment, as specified. This bill would have required the data to be posted quarterly on the BSCC website beginning September 1, 2019. AB 1870 was held on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
      
   3. AB 1870 (Gallagher) of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, would have required, commencing July 1, 2017, BSCC, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced and released on or after July 1, 2017, pursuant to 2011 realignment, as specified. This bill would have required the data to be posted quarterly on the BSCC website beginning September 1, 2018. AB 1870 was held on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
      
   4. AB 602 (Gallagher), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, would have required, commencing July 1, 2016, BSCC, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced and released on or after July 1, 2016, pursuant to 2011 realignment, as specified. This bill would have required the data to be posted quarterly on the BSCC website beginning September 1, 2017. AB 602 was held on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
      
   5. AB 2521 (Hagman), of the 2013-14 Legislative Session, would have required, commencing July 1, 2015, BSCC, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to collect and analyze data regarding recidivism rates of all persons who are sentenced and released on or after July 1, 2015, pursuant to 2011 realignment, as specified. This bill would have required the data to be posted quarterly on the BSCC website beginning September 1, 2016. AB 2521 was held on the Senate Committee on Appropriations' Suspense File.
      
   6. AB 109 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011, enacted Criminal Justice Realignment which, among other things, limited which felons could be sent to state prison, required that more felons serve their sentences in county jails, and created PRCS.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association

Burbank Police Officers' Association

California Coalition of School Safety Professionals

California District Attorneys Association

Claremont Police Officers Association

Corona Police Officers Association

Culver City Police Officers' Association

Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County

Fullerton Police Officers' Association

Los Angeles School Police Officers Association

Murrieta Police Officers' Association

Newport Beach Police Association

Palos Verdes Police Officers Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Pomona Police Officers' Association

Riverside Police Officers Association

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Upland Police Officers Association

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744