Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State finance, LAO and probation leaders debate updates to SB 678 community corrections formula
Summary
State officials on the Senate Budget Subcommittee discussed administration proposals to change how California pays counties under the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act (SB 678), focusing on stability, incentives and how to measure savings; no formal vote or bill action was taken.
Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard administration and policy office testimony on proposed methodology updates to SB 678, the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Act of 2009, at a hearing in Sacramento on May 8, 2025.
The Department of Finance’s Justin Adelman told the committee SB 678 "is a statute that provides a methodology to fund probation departments to avert individuals from prison sentences," describing a three‑part formula the administration proposes to modify to reduce year‑to‑year volatility. "We're reproposing and this is a rehearing on SB 678 methodology updates," Adelman said.
Why it matters: SB 678 channels a portion of state prison savings to county probation departments for community supervision and rehabilitation programs. Changes to the formula affect annual county allocations, budgeting certainty for probation offices and the state’s projected corrections savings.
What was proposed and debated
- Current formula and problems: Adelman outlined the statute’s three components: (1) a baseline comparison to a 7.9 percent revocation rate used at the program’s creation; (2) an incentive payment historically tied to contract bed costs; and (3) a $200,000 minimum payment for counties that meet data‑reporting requirements. He said some counties face large year‑to‑year swings under the current baseline method and that contract‑bed based incentives are outdated because those beds are no longer used.
- Administration changes: The administration proposes a maintenance payment to stabilize component 1, update component 2 to use average per‑capita incarceration/parole costs rather than contract bed values and base the look‑back period on multiple years instead of just the prior year; component 3 (the $200,000 minimum) would be retained.
- LAO alternatives: Orlando Sanchez of the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended excluding 2021 from any new baseline because pandemic patterns affected that year, using a marginal cost rather than an average cost to estimate state savings, and reconsidering the minimum guarantee. The LAO also urged using targeted funding for evidence‑based practices and stronger oversight by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) during any transition.
- County and probation concerns: Senator Sciardo and other committee members asked whether the formula ensures counties get the funding necessary to deliver supervision and rehabilitative services. Justin Adelman said the governor’s proposal would result in roughly $140 million annually under the statutory formula cited in the governor’s budget and that chief probation officers supported the administration's stability‑focused approach. Adelman also noted that during recent statutory freezes the statewide revocation rate fell to about 3.17 percent.
What the committee did not do
No motion or vote was recorded on the proposed SB 678 methodology changes during the hearing. Committee members requested additional details and oversight proposals, and multiple witnesses urged that any new allocation method balance stability with continued incentives for reduced revocations.
Key numbers and clarifications
- Baseline cited in statute: 7.9% revocation rate at program inception. - Recent freeze years revocation rate (administration figures): about 3.17% (pre‑COVID about 3.37%). - Minimum payment retained in proposal: $200,000 for counties that meet reporting requirements. - Administration estimate of an approximate annual allocation under the statutory baseline referenced: about $140,000,000 (as described in testimony).
Voices at the hearing
- Justin Adelman, Department of Finance (presenter) - Francine Burns, Judicial Council (on evidence‑based practices and reporting) - Orlando Sanchez, Legislative Analyst’s Office (policy and alternatives) - Drew Soderberg, Legislative Analyst’s Office (technical support) - Josh Gogger, Chief Probation Officers of California (public comment supporting the administration’s approach)
Next steps
Committee members asked administration and oversight agencies to return with additional implementation detail, data‑driven guardrails to limit extreme swings in awards, and options to strengthen local accountability for evidence‑based practices. The committee did not adopt any statutory language or take formal action during the hearing.
