Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Incentives Sb678 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative analysts and probation leaders back SB 678 formula revisions to stabilize county incentive funding
Summary
The LAO and Finance proposed changes to the SB 678 grant formula to stabilize county incentive payments, update the incentive calculations and set a new 2021–23 baseline; the Judicial Council and probation leaders supported the approach to preserve gains in reduced revocations.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance discussed proposed revisions to the SB 678 community corrections performance incentive grant formula, which counties receive for reducing felony supervision revocations to state prison.
LAO representative Orlando Zavala summarized the program history and noted the formula was modified in 2015–16 and frozen during the pandemic years because changes in probation supervision and criminal justice policy distorted baseline measures. The LAO recommended an alternative approach with two components: a direct performance measure tied to a revised baseline and a pay‑for‑implementation component that funds specific evidence‑based practices.
Justin Edelman of the Department of Finance described the administration’s January proposal to update the formula. Finance proposes reducing a prior component by about $20 million to create an ongoing performance‑maintenance payment with a mechanism for growth, updating the incentive payment methodology and establishing a baseline using calendar years 2021–2023 to avoid year‑to‑year volatility.
Judicial Council and the Chief Probation Officers of California told the committee the SB 678 framework has produced reduced revocations and state savings and urged preserving stability so counties can sustain evidence‑based programming. The Judicial Council said it already collects and audits revocation data and conducts statewide assessments of evidence‑based practices; the LAO and probation leaders recommended the BSCC or a similar body help set and audit practice‑funding decisions.
Public defenders and local probation representatives emphasized using SB 678 funds for community‑based supports such as housing, reentry services and programs targeting transitional‑age youth and urged inclusion of voice from defenders and those with lived experience in any work group that sets priorities.
