<strong>2012</strong>-<strong>13</strong> Budge tFigure 5Wide Variation in Past Admission Rates Among Counties2010KingsTehamaKernSan BernardinoAlpineShastaYubaSutterTulareHumboldtYoloButteLakeStanislausAmadorFresnoLos AngelesGlennRiversideSan JoaquinColusaMontereySanta BarbaraCaliforniaSacramentoSiskiyouSolanoMercedLassenMariposaSan BenitoMaderaMendocinoSan DiegoNapaSan Luis ObispoOrangePlacerPlumasInyoImperialSanta ClaraDel NorteTrinityEl DoradoVenturaSonomaTuolumneCalaverasSan MateoAlamedaSan FranciscoSanta CruzModocSierraMonoMarinContra CostaNevada100 200 300 400 500 600Prison Admission Rates (Admissions Per 100,000 <strong>Adult</strong> Population)14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov
<strong>2012</strong>-<strong>13</strong> Budge tto contemplate the new mission described in therealignment legislation. <strong>The</strong> organizational chartincludes no new <strong>of</strong>fices or divisions focused on theexpanded technical assistance or data collectionresponsibilities envisioned by the Legislature inestablishing the BSCC. According to the administration,additional resources may be requested—and changes to the organizational chart will bemade—in the future after an executive director forBSCC has been appointed and has had the opportunityto develop a more comprehensive plan.<strong>The</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> BSCC’s specificresponsibilities, and the fact that BSCC’s additionalmission is not accommodated in the administration’splan (at least for the budget year), isproblematic for two main reasons. First, as localgovernments have already begun absorbingcaseload and receiving funding from <strong>2011</strong> publicsafety realignment, counties could benefit fromtechnical assistance and expertise as they adaptto their new responsibilities, especially duringthis early stage. Second, there is currently noaccountability system in place to ensure that localprograms are operating effectively and efficiently.<strong>The</strong> BSCC should play a key role in this area,particularly in collecting and analyzing relevantdata to allow policymakers and the public toevaluate a program’s success. Without statewideleadership and coordination, the data collectedlocally will likely be inconsistent among counties,making it difficult to compare counties’ performanceand learn from local successes.SB 678 Formula Still Needs Modification toAccount for <strong>Realignment</strong>In accordance with SB 678, counties currentlyreceive funding based on their success in reducingthe percentage <strong>of</strong> probationers sent to stateprison compared to a county-specific baselinepercentage <strong>of</strong> probationers they sent to prisonbetween 2006 and 2008. Our analysis indicatesthat the realignment <strong>of</strong> adult <strong>of</strong>fenders from thestate to counties will affect some <strong>of</strong> the same<strong>of</strong>fenders captured by the SB 678 formula. Withoutstatutory changes, therefore, the SB 678 formulacould effectively provide counties funding asecond time for <strong>of</strong>fenders already funded throughrealignment. Chapter 12, Statutes <strong>of</strong> <strong>2011</strong> (ABX1 17,Blumenfield), directs the Department <strong>of</strong> Finance inconsultation with the Administrative Office <strong>of</strong> theCourts, the Chief Probation Officers <strong>of</strong> California,and CDCR to revise the formula to account forthis. <strong>The</strong> administration has not yet proposed arevised formula, though we are advised that therequired participants are working on a proposal toimplement the necessary changes.Specific Recommendations toPromote Long-Term SuccessBased on the issues discussed above, we <strong>of</strong>ferseveral recommendations designed to improve thelikelihood that realignment will be implementedsuccessfully for the long term. Specifically, werecommend (1) providing counties with flexibilityon how to spend the unallocated realignmentrevenue growth, (2) adopting an allocationformula that provides money to counties in a waythat is responsive to future changes in countydemographics and other factors related to thenumber <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders they are likely to manage,(3) rejecting the administration’s request to fundlocal training and planning, and (4) more clearlydefining the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> BSCC to focus ontechnical assistance and local accountability.www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15
Change language