The 2012-13 Budget: The 2011 Realignment of Adult Offenders—An ...

2012-13 Budge tto contemplate the new mission described in therealignment legislation. The organizational chartincludes no new offices 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.The lack of definition of 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 2011 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.The 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 RealignmentIn accordance with SB 678, counties currentlyreceive funding based on their success in reducingthe percentage of probationers sent to stateprison compared to a county-specific baselinepercentage of probationers they sent to prisonbetween 2006 and 2008. Our analysis indicatesthat the realignment of adult offenders from thestate to counties will affect some of the sameoffenders captured by the SB 678 formula. Withoutstatutory changes, therefore, the SB 678 formulacould effectively provide counties funding asecond time for offenders already funded throughrealignment. Chapter 12, Statutes of 2011 (ABX1 17,Blumenfield), directs the Department of Finance inconsultation with the Administrative Office of theCourts, the Chief Probation Officers of California,and CDCR to revise the formula to account forthis. The 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 offerseveral 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 of offenders they are likely to manage,(3) rejecting the administration’s request to fundlocal training and planning, and (4) more clearlydefining the responsibilities of BSCC to focus ontechnical assistance and local accountability.www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15