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

2012-13 Budge tresearchers, and universities) have been holdingdifferent meetings to discuss data collection issuesand other implementation issues. It is not clear,however, the degree to which these conversationsare focused on promoting long-term localaccountability, or the degree to which they will besuccessful in creating statewide uniformity on themeasures to be implemented.We recommend the Legislature direct theBSCC (or CDCR, until the BSCC is officiallyestablished) to create a working group to identifyan accountability system that is as comprehensive,uniform, and accessible as is reasonable givenlimited state and local resources. This groupshould be made up of representatives of the state,counties, and the broader research community andshould focus on (1) identifying the handful of keyoutcome measures that all counties should collect,(2) clearly defining these measures to ensure that allcounties collect them uniformly, and (3) developinga process for counties to report the data and forBSCC to make the data available to the public.In the near term, it would probably be mostpractical for the state to simply expand on currentdata collection systems. For example, CSA has aquarterly jail survey they conduct of counties. Thiscould be expanded to include probation departmentcaseloads, as well as to include a few key outcomemeasures, such as successful discharges fromcommunity supervision and recidivism rates. Wethink that building on an existing process may bethe less burdensome and costly for counties. Oncereceiving the data from counties, the BSCC shouldbe required to post the data on its public websitein a format that allows the public to create sortablereports to compare caseloads and outcomes acrosscounties and time. The Legislature may also wantto direct BSCC to begin exploring the feasibility ofdeveloping a more comprehensive statewide casemanagement system, including determining theoverall costs, potential funding sources (includingfederal and private dollars), implementationchallenges (such as in counties without robustIT infrastructures), and the potential fiscal andprogrammatic benefits to counties.Finally, we recommend that the Legislaturedirect CSA to report at budget hearings on plansfor how it will fulfill the new mission of BSCC. Inparticular, the administration should report onwhat steps it plans to take to provide technical assistanceto counties and to assist in the developmentof local accountability systems. The administrationshould also report on how it can focus on theseresponsibilities, within existing resources or to whatextent additional funding may be necessary. Asnoted above, the Governor’s budget provides no newfunding for the BSCC. We note that, if adopted, ourrecommendation to reject the Governor’s proposalto provide counties with planning and trainingfunding would save $8.9 million in General Fundresources, some of which could be directed tosupport BSCC’s new mission.ConclusionThe 2011 realignment of adult offenders has thepotential to produce a more efficient and effectivestatewide criminal justice system. Long-termsuccess, however, will depend on the choicesmade, in particular, by county policymakersand program managers. The state can promotesuccess and give counties a better opportunity toimplement realignment effectively by taking someactions today to support local financial flexibility,allocating funding in a way that encouragesinnovation, and supporting local accountability.www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19