Submitted July 17, 2008
Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.
This measure (1) expands drug treatment diversion
programs for criminal offenders, (2) modifies parole supervision procedures and
expands prison and parole rehabilitation programs, (3) allows inmates to earn
additional time off their prison sentences for participation and performance in
rehabilitation programs, (4) reduces certain penalties for marijuana possession,
and (5) makes miscellaneous changes to state law related mainly to state
administration of rehabilitation and parole programs for offenders. Each of
these proposals is discussed separately below as well as their combined fiscal
effects on the state and local governments.
Expansion of Drug Treatment Diversion Programs
Probation and Parole. Currently, courts can
place both adult and juvenile offenders under supervision in the community,
where they must meet certain requirements, such as reporting on a regular basis
to authorities. Offenders supervised by county authorities are “on probation.”
Offenders who have completed a prison sentence and who are supervised by the
state are “on parole.”
Three Types of Crimes. Under current state
law, there are three basic kinds of crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and
infractions. A felony, the most severe type of crime, can result in a sentence
to state prison, county jail, a fine, supervision on county probation in the
community, or some combination of these punishments. Some felonies are
designated in statute as violent or serious crimes that can result in additional
punishment, such as a longer term in state prison.
Misdemeanors are considered less serious and can result
in a jail term, probation, a fine, or release to the community without probation
but with certain conditions imposed by the court. State law defines certain drug
crimes as “nonviolent drug possession offenses,” which can be either felonies or
misdemeanors. Infractions, which include violations of certain traffic laws, do
not result in a prison or jail sentence.
State Prison System. The state operates 33
state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population
of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008‑09 are estimated to be
approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is
estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing
overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all
inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms have been converted to house
Existing Drug Treatment Diversion Programs
In general, state law authorizes three main types of drug treatment diversion programs for criminal offenders.
- Penal Code 1000. Under Penal Code 1000 and related statutes, certain drug possession offenders who have no prior drug offenses can be diverted to drug education or treatment programs, usually at their own expense, under a “deferred entry of judgment” arrangement. This means that the offender must plead guilty to the drug possession charges but that sentencing for the crime is suspended. If, after 18 months to three years, the offender successfully completes a drug treatment program and stays out of trouble, the charges against the offender are dismissed and the offense does not go on his or her record.
- Proposition 36. Proposition 36, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, established a drug treatment diversion program for offenders who are convicted of specific crimes designated as nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under Proposition 36, an offender can be sentenced to probation and treatment, instead of prison or jail. Some parole violators are also eligible for Proposition 36 diversion. Proposition 36 limits when and how sanctions, such as jail or prison time, are imposed on offenders who violate the conditions of their drug treatment programs or commit new drug possession crimes.
- Drug Courts. Under drug court programs operated for adult felons, certain offenders charged or convicted of various types of crimes, including drug offenses, are diverted to treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug court participants are subject to regular monitoring by a court (as well as by probation officers and drug treatment providers), with judges generally given discretion as to when and how to impose sanctions if participants do not comply with drug program rules or commit new crimes.
New Adult Diversion Programs Established
Three-Track System. Currently, several
programs permit criminal offenders who have committed drug-related offenses, or
who have substance abuse problems, to be diverted from prison or jail to other
forms of punishment. (These programs are described in the nearby text box.) This
measure expands and largely replaces these existing programs with a new
three-track drug treatment diversion program. Figure 1 summarizes which
offenders are eligible for each track and their period of participation.
Tracks I, II, and III—Eligibility and Period of Participation
Time Period in Diversion
Who Is Included:
• Offender charged with nonviolent drug possession
offenses who is eligible for deferred entry of judgment programs. A
prosecutor would have the burden of proof to show that an offender
• Offender charged with one or more nonviolent drug
Who Is Excluded:
• Offender would be excluded if has (1) current or prior
conviction for a violent or serious offense or (2) prior conviction
for any felony within the prior five years. However, an offender
with one prior conviction for a nonviolent drug possession offense
would be eligible.
Generally, an offender would be excluded if charged
with a non-drug related offense, but a judge would have the
discretion to allow participation.
6 to 18 months.
Generally, offender convicted of a nonviolent drug
possession offense who is sentenced to treatment and probation.
Who Is Excluded:
Cannot include offender eligible for Track I.
Offender generally excluded if previously convicted of
a violent or serious crime. However, an offender who, within the
prior five years, had not been in prison and did not have certain
felony or misdemeanor convictions would be eligible.
Offender would be excluded if he or she possessed
certain drugs while armed with a deadly weapon; or had five or more
convictions for any types of offenses in the prior 30 months.
Offender would generally be excluded if convicted of
other felonies or misdemeanors at the same time as a new drug
charge. However, a judge could declare an offender convicted of such
a misdemeanor eligible for Track II diversion.
Generally up to 12 months.
The court can order up to two, 6‑month extensions, for
a maximum of 24 months.
offender committed a nonviolent drug possession offense, but
was not eligible for Track II.
any other type of nonviolent offense eligible for Track III
diversion for substance abuse or addiction.
Offender excluded from Track II for having five or
more criminal convictions within the prior 30 months would
specifically be eligible for Track III.
Who Is Excluded:
Offender would generally be excluded from Track III if
he or she committed a violent or
serious felony. However, such an offender could be included if
diversion of offender was sought by a district attorney.
Generally up to 18 months.
The court can order up to two, 3‑month extensions, for
a maximum of 24 months.
General Effect of These Changes.
In general, the new Tracks I,
II, and III would expand the types of offenders who are eligible for diversion,
and expand and intensify the services provided to offenders mainly by increasing
the funding available to pay for them. While participants in existing Penal Code
1000 programs must usually pay the out-of-pocket cost of their drug treatment,
this measure generally provides funding to counties for participants in
treatment under Track I, as well as other tracks.
Offenders in all three tracks would generally receive the same types of drug
treatment services that assessments determined they needed. This could include
treatment in clinics or residential facilities, the dispensing of medication
such as methadone, or the provision of mental health services.
However, the three tracks would vary in eligibility
requirements, period of participation, level of supervision, and when and how
sanctions, such as incarceration in prison or jail, could be imposed on
offenders who violate drug treatment diversion program rules or commit new
drug-related offenses. The measure permits offenders who have failed in Track I
to be shifted to Track II, where they may face more severe sanctions. Similarly,
offenders who have failed in Track II may be moved to Track III, where more
severe sanctions would be possible. This measure would also require follow-up
hearings in court when an offender fails to begin assigned treatment.
Finally, this measure would require the collection and
publication of data, specified reports, and research into the effect of this
measure and other drug policy issues.
Funding Provisions. The 2007‑08 Budget
Act appropriated $100 million from the General Fund to the Substance Abuse
Treatment Trust Fund (SATTF), which was initially created under Proposition 36
to support treatment programs and other allowable activities. This measure
appropriates $150 million from the General Fund to the SATTF for the second half
of 2008‑09 and $460 million in 2009‑10, increasing annually thereafter, adjusted
for the cost of living and population. After monies are set aside for certain
administrative and program costs, the measure designates 15 percent of the
remainder for Track I programs, 60 percent for Track II programs, and 10 percent
for Track III programs.
A new 23-member state Treatment Diversion Oversight and
Accountability Commission would be established under this measure to set program
rules regarding the use and distribution of SATTF funds and the collection of
data for required evaluations of the programs and program funding needs. The
measure generally prohibits the state or counties from using SATTF funds to
replace funds now used for the support of substance abuse treatment programs. In
addition, it requires that other available private and public funding sources be
used whenever possible to pay for treatment before monies from SATTF are spent
for these treatment services.
This measure permits SATTF funds to be spent on so-called
“harm reduction” drug therapies that “promote methods of reducing the physical,
social, emotional and economic harms associated with drug misuse” and that also
“are free of judgment or blame and directly involve the client in setting his or
her own goals.”
New Juvenile Treatment Program Established
This measure creates a new county-operated program for
nonviolent youth under age 18 deemed to be at risk of committing future drug
offenses. The program would receive a set share of SATTF funding (15 percent,
after certain implementation costs were deducted) that would be allocated to
counties and could be used for various specified purposes, including drug
treatment, mental health medication and counseling, family therapy, educational
stipends for higher education, employment stipends, and transportation services.
Changes to State Parole and Rehabilitation Programs
This measure makes a number of changes to the state’s
current parole system, including new rules regarding parole terms, the return to
custody of parole violators, and rehabilitation programs for offenders. Below,
we briefly outline how the parole system works and how it would be affected by
Parole Terms. Under current state law,
offenders are released from prison and placed on parole for a set period of
time, usually depending on the nature of the offense for which they were
convicted. Most offenders are subject to a maximum three-year parole period,
which can be extended under certain circumstances to four years, although they
may be discharged earlier from parole if they stay out of trouble after their
release to the community. Offenders who have committed certain crimes,
particularly violent sex crimes or murder, are subject to longer parole terms.
Parole Revocations. Parolees who get in
trouble after being released to the community can be returned to state prison in
two different ways. One way is if they are prosecuted and convicted in the
courts of a new crime—either a felony or a misdemeanor—and sentenced to an
additional term in prison. Another way is through actions of parole authorities
and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), a process referred to as revocation of
parole, based on a finding that a parole violation has occurred. Revocation is
an administrative process that does not involve any action by a court. In some
cases, parole revocation involves violations by parolees that could constitute a
crime. But parole revocation can also result from actions, such as failing to
report to a parole office, that do not in themselves constitute a crime. These
types of offenses are sometimes referred to as “technical” parole violations.
Rehabilitation Programs for Offenders. The
state currently provides substance abuse treatment, academic education, job
training, and other types of programs for prison inmates and parolees in order
to increase the likelihood of success in the community after their release from
prison. However, due to funding limitations, space constraints, and in some
cases security concerns, the state often does not now make such programs
available to inmates and parolees. Also, the state does not directly provide
services for offenders after they have been discharged from parole. However,
some former parolees may qualify for public services, such as mental health or
substance abuse treatment, that the state is helping to support.
New Limits on Parole Terms
This measure reduces the parole term of some parolees but
allows longer parole terms for others. It specifies that offenders whose most
recent term in prison was for a drug or nonviolent property crime, and who did
not have a serious, violent, street gang-related, or sex crime on their record,
would be placed on parole supervision for six months. Under the measure, these
same parolees could be placed on an additional six months of parole at minimal
supervision levels if they failed to complete an appropriate rehabilitation
program that was offered to them during the first six months.
This measure also provides longer parole terms for some
offenders. Specifically, this measure changes from three to five years the
parole terms for any offender whose most recent prison sentence was for a
violent or serious felony (such as first-degree burglary or robbery). Some
violent sex offenders and other parolees would continue to receive even longer
parole terms as provided under existing law.
New Rules for Revocation of Parole Violators
This measure requires that parole violations be divided
into three types—technical violations, misdemeanors, and felonies—and generally
prohibits certain parolees from being returned to state prison for technical or
misdemeanor parole violations. This measure would allow revocation of parolees
who committed felony violations of parole. It also permits revocation to state
prison of those committing technical or misdemeanor violations who were
classified high-risk by CDCR, or have violent or serious offenses on their
Under this measure, certain parolees who commit parole
violations could face such punishments as more frequent drug testing or
community work assignments. Some parolees who hide, are repeat violators, or
commit misdemeanor parole violations could serve jail time, which under the
measure would be at the expense of the state. Parole violators could also be
placed in rehabilitation programs.
Expansion of Rehabilitation Programs for Offenders
This measure expands rehabilitation programs for inmates,
parolees, and offenders who have been discharged from parole. As regards
inmates, the measure requires that all inmates except those with life terms be
provided with rehabilitation programs beginning at least 90 days before their
scheduled release from prison. The measure directs CDCR to conduct an assessment
of the inmate’s needs as well as which programs would most likely result in his
or her successful return to the community. Parolees are to be provided
rehabilitation programs by CDCR tailored to the parolee’s needs as determined in
their assessment. Offenders would be permitted to request up to a year’s worth
of rehabilitation services within a year after they are discharged from parole.
While these offenders would receive these services from county probation
departments, all operational costs of the services would be reimbursed by CDCR
under the terms of the measure.
Other Parole System Changes
Parole Reform Board Created. This measure
creates a new 21-member Parole Reform Oversight and Accountability Board with
authority to review, direct, and approve the rehabilitation programs and to set
state parole policies.
Costs Shifted to State for Drug Diversion of
Parolees. Currently, some parolees who are diverted to drug treatment
receive their treatment services from counties. This measure provides that
either CDCR or counties could provide such treatment services for parolees, but
that CDCR would have to pay any county operating costs for doing so.
Pilot Programs for Parole Violators. This
measure directs CDCR to establish pilot projects similar to drug courts (see
earlier text box for description) to divert certain parolees who have committed
parole violations to treatment and rehabilitation programs. Under the measure,
the funding to carry out the programs could come either from the CDCR’s budget
or separate funding legislation.
Changes in Parole Revocation Procedures.
This measure requires that parolees receive notice of alleged violations of
parole at a BPH hearing held within three business days of their being taken
into custody. Consistent with current federal court orders, this measure amends
state law to provide all such parolees a right to legal counsel at this hearing.
Credits for Performance in Rehabilitation Programs
State law currently provides credits to certain prison
inmates who participate in work, training, or education programs. These credits
reduce the prison time the inmates must serve. (Credits can be taken away if an
inmate commits disciplinary offenses while in prison.) Some offenders who are
committed to prison for violent and serious crimes can earn only limited credits
or can earn no credits at all. But a number of offenders are eligible to earn up
to one day off their prison sentences for each day they participate in such
programs. Offenders who agree to participate in such programs, but are not yet
assigned to one, receive up to one day in credits for every three days they are
in this situation.
Expanded Credits Permissible
This measure would change state law to permit some
inmates who were sentenced to prison for certain drug or nonviolent property
crimes to earn more credits to reduce their prison terms than are permitted
under current state law. The parole reform board established in this measure
would be authorized to award additional credits based upon such factors as the
inmate showing progress in completing rehabilitation programs. The measure does
not specify nor limit the amount of such additional credits that could be
awarded, but it does prohibit them from being awarded to any inmate who has ever
been convicted of a violent or serious felony or certain sex crimes.
Change in Marijuana Possession Penalties
Current state law generally makes the possession of less
than 28.5 grams of marijuana by either an adult or a minor a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of up to $100 (plus other penalties and fines that can
bring the total cost to as much as $370) but not jail. Possession of greater
amounts of marijuana, or repeat offenses, can result in confinement in jail or a
juvenile hall, greater fines, or both. Revenues generated from these fines
(including the additional penalties) are distributed in accordance with state
law to various specified state and county government programs.
Penalties for Marijuana Offenses Would Become Infraction
This measure would make the possession of less than 28.5
grams of marijuana by either an adult or a minor an infraction (similar to a
traffic ticket) rather than a misdemeanor. Adults would be subject, as they are
today, to a fine of up to $100. However, the additional penalties of any kind
would be limited under this measure to an amount equal to the fine imposed. (For
example, imposition of the maximum $100 fine could result in an additional $100
in penalties.) Persons under age 18 would no longer be subject to a fine for a
first offense, but would be required to complete a drug education program. Also,
under this measure, fines collected for marijuana possession would be deposited
in a special fund to provide additional support of the new youth programs
created by this measure.
Other provisions of this measure:
- Reorganize the way CDCR’s rehabilitation and parole
programs are administered, and establish a new, second secretary of the
department and a chief deputy warden for rehabilitation at each prison;
- Expand BPH from 17 to 29 commissioners;
- Require county jails to provide materials and
strategies on drug overdose awareness and prevention to all inmates prior to
- Specify that, except for parolees, adults in drug
treatment programs would receive mental health services using funding from
Proposition 63, a 2004 ballot measure approved by voters that expanded
community mental health services.
This measure would have a number of fiscal effects on
state and local government agencies. The major fiscal effects that we have
identified are summarized in Figure 2 and discussed in more detail below. The
fiscal estimates discussed below could change due to pending federal court
litigation or budget actions.
Summary of Major Fiscal Effects
State Operating Costs
Potentially Exceeding $1 Billion Annually. Increased state
costs over time primarily for expansion of drug treatment and
rehabilitation of offenders due to:
Increased spending for a new three-track drug
treatment diversion system.
Expansion of rehabilitation programs for prison
inmates, parolees, and offenders released from parole.
Various other changes to state programs, such as a
requirement that the state reimburse counties for drug treatment
services now provided for certain parolees.
State Operating Savings Potentially Exceeding
$1 Billion Annually. State operating savings over time
primarily for prison and parole supervision due to:
Diversion of additional offenders from state prisons
to drug treatment programs.
Exclusion of certain categories of parole violators
from state prison.
Potential expansion of the credits that certain
inmates could receive that would reduce the time they must serve in
A reduction in the length of time of parole
supervision for offenders convicted of drug and nonviolent property
State Capital Outlay Savings That Could
Eventually Exceed $2.5 Billion. Net one-time savings from
constructing fewer prison beds because of a reduction in the inmate
population. These savings would be partly offset by costs for
additional prison space for rehabilitation programs.
County Operations Costs and Funding—Unknown
Net Fiscal Effect. Increases in county expenditures for new
drug treatment diversion programs and juvenile programs would
probably be generally in line with the increased funding they would
receive from the state. In addition, various provisions could result
in unknown increases and reductions in county operating costs and
County Capital Outlay—Unknown Net Fiscal
Effect. Counties could face added capital outlay costs for
housing parole violators, but decreased costs from the diversion of
some offenders from jails to drug treatment.
Other. Various other fiscal impacts on
state and local government costs and revenues from the diversion of
additional offenders from prison or jail or the release of some
offenders earlier from prison.
Increase in State Costs for Expansion of Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation
This measure would eventually result in an increase
in state costs, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, mainly for expansion
of drug treatment and other services provided for eligible offenders and related
Expenditures for New Drug Diversion System.
As noted earlier, this measure appropriates $150 million from the state General
Fund for the second half of the 2008-09 fiscal year (January through June 2009)
to the SATTF, rising to $460 million annually in
2009-10, for support of the three-track drug treatment diversion program and the
program for juvenile treatment services established in this measure. The 2009-10
funding level for these new programs would be more than $300 million greater
than the General Fund appropriations provided in the 2007-08 Budget Act
for the programs they would largely replace (Proposition 36 treatment and drug
courts). In subsequent fiscal years, the appropriations for the new programs
would be automatically adjusted annually for the cost of living and every fifth
year for changes in the state population, and thus would be likely to grow
significantly over time.
The monies appropriated for the new drug diversion
programs could be used for various treatment and administrative costs. It is
likely that at least some program and administrative costs related to the
expansion of drug treatment diversion would require additional state
Expenditures for Inmate and Parole Rehabilitation
Programs. This measure would result in an increase of several hundreds
of millions of dollars annually in state costs for expanded rehabilitation
programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community. These
costs would be paid for primarily from the state General Fund.
Other State Fiscal Impacts. A number of
specific provisions in this measure would result in additional state program and
administrative costs, with the potential of collectively amounting to tens of
millions of dollars annually. Among the provisions that would increase state
General Fund costs is the requirement that the state reimburse counties (and
some cities) for the incarceration of additional parole violators in jails. The
requirement that the state reimburse counties for drug treatment services that
the counties provide to certain parolees would also increase state costs. In
addition, the provisions in this measure changing the penalties for marijuana
use would reduce state revenues from criminal penalties.
Level of Additional Costs Uncertain.
The cost to the state of carrying out the various provisions of this measure are
unknown and could, in the aggregate, be higher or lower than we have estimated
by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending upon how this measure is
implemented. For example, the costs to the state of providing rehabilitation
services to inmates during their last 90 days in prison could be significantly
reduced to the extent that the state was able to redirect available slots in
education, substance abuse, and other programs toward these short-term inmates
and away from inmates who had longer than 90 days to serve on their sentences.
Savings on State Operating Costs for Prison and Parole Systems
This measure would eventually result in savings on state
operating costs, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, due mainly to
reductions in prison and parole supervision caseloads. Specifically, this
measure could eventually reduce the state prison population by more that 18,000
inmates and reduce the number of parolees under state supervision by more than
22,000. The reasons for these population reductions are discussed below.
Impacts From Drug Treatment Diversion Program.
The three-track drug treatment diversion system created in this measure could
significantly reduce the size of the prison population, thereby reducing prison
operating costs. This is because the measure (1) diverts additional offenders to
drug treatment programs instead of incarceration in state prison, (2) allows
some offenders who have violated diversion program rules or drug laws to remain
in treatment instead of being incarcerated in state prison, and (3) makes it
possible for more offenders to receive the specific type of drug treatment (such
as care in a residential facility) that would be more likely to result in better
treatment outcomes, and thus make them less likely to be involved in criminal
activity in the future.
Other Prison Impacts. Other provisions of
this measure would also likely result in reduced prison and parole caseloads and
related savings over time. These include provisions that:
- Exclude certain categories of parole violators from
being returned to state prison;
- Allow certain inmates in rehabilitation programs to
receive additional credits that would reduce the time they must serve in
- Expand rehabilitation services for inmates, parolees,
and offenders who have completed parole, thereby potentially reducing the
rate at which they return to prison for new offenses;
- Reduce the period of parole supervision for offenders
convicted of certain drug or nonviolent property crimes. These savings would
eventually be partly offset by the increase in parole terms for some violent
and serious offenders.
Parole Savings in the Longer Term. In the
short term, this measure could increase parole caseloads by preventing certain
parolees from being returned to prison for parole violations. In the longer
term, however, this measure is likely to result in a significant net reduction
in parole caseloads. That is because a large reduction in the number of
offenders in prison—for example, due to increased drug diversion programs—means
ultimately that there would be fewer offenders being released from prison to
parole supervision. The provisions in this measure reducing the period of time
certain offenders are supervised on parole would also reduce parole caseloads.
Level of Savings for Prison and Parole Somewhat
Uncertain. The level of savings to state prison and parole operations
from all of these provisions are unknown and could, in the aggregate, be higher
or lower than we have estimated by hundreds of millions of dollars, depending
upon how this measure is implemented. For example, the new state parole reform
board created in this measure could expand the award of credits to inmates in
rehabilitation programs but is not required to do so. Also, the savings to
prison and parole operations resulting from this measure could vary
significantly over time. For example, some offenders initially diverted from
prison to drug treatment programs under this measure, who did not succeed in
treatment, might eventually be returned to prison for committing crimes
unrelated to drugs.
Net Savings on State Capital Outlay Costs
This measure would eventually result in one-time net
state savings on capital outlay costs for new prison facilities that eventually
could exceed $2.5 billion. This net estimate of savings takes into account both
(1) likely savings to the state from constructing fewer prison beds because of a
reduced inmate population and (2) increased needs for prison program space due
to this measure’s requirement for expanding in-prison rehabilitation programs.
The costs for additional program space could be substantially less if (1) the
expected reduction in the inmate population frees up existing prison space now
being used to house inmates that could instead be used for operating
rehabilitation programs for inmates and (2) the requirement for expanding inmate
rehabilitation programs at least 90 days before their release is partly met by
reducing program participation by inmates with more than 90 days to serve in
Unknown Net Fiscal Impact on County Operations and Capital Outlay
County Operations. This measure provides
more than $300 million in additional funding annually by 2009-10 through the
SATTF for adult and juvenile drug treatment and diversion programs that would be
operated mainly by counties. Counties are likely to incur increases in
expenditures over time for the programs, including administrative costs, that
are generally in line with the increase in the funding that they would receive
from the state through the SATTF.
In addition, the measure could result in other increases
and reductions in county operating costs and revenues. For example, provisions
requiring use of Proposition 63 funds for mentally ill offenders placed in drug
treatment diversion programs could increase county costs to the extent that this
change prompted counties to replace the funds shifted to these offenders with
other local funds. However, the expansion of drug treatment diversion programs
in this measure could reduce county costs for jailing offenders for drug-related
crimes. The net fiscal impact of these and other factors on counties is unknown
and could vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.
County Capital Outlay. Some counties could,
as a result of this measure, face added capital outlay costs for housing parole
violators who would be diverted from prison to jails. However, these capital
outlay costs could be offset by the diversion of drug offenders from jails to
treatment in the community. Other aspects of the measure could also reduce jail
populations. The net effect on county capital outlay costs is unknown and would
probably vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.
Other Fiscal Impacts on State and Local Governments
This measure could result in other state and local
government costs. This would occur, for example, to the extent that additional
offenders diverted from prison or jail require government services or commit
additional crimes that result in additional law enforcement costs or
victim-related government costs, such as government-paid health care for persons
without private insurance coverage. Alternatively, there could be increased
state and local government revenue to the extent that offenders remaining in the
community because of this measure become taxpayers. The magnitude of these
impacts is unknown.
Return to Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page