Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill: Criminal Justice

Restructuring Local Assistance for Public Safety

The Governor’s budget proposes 10 percent across–the–board reductions for most General Fund local assistance programs involving public safety, resulting in General Fund savings of approximately $60 million in the budget year. In order to better prioritize the allocation of scarce state resources, we recommend instead that the Legislature reject this approach and evaluate funding for public safety programs on a case–by–case basis. Our recommended approach would result in savings of about $270 million in 2008–09 by eliminating or reducing General Fund support for programs that have not demonstrated results, do not serve a statewide purpose, could be consolidated, or could be funded from other sources.

State’s Role in Funding Local Public Safety Programs

For the most part, public safety is a matter of local control in California. While the state establishes laws regarding criminal conduct and sentencing, control and funding for public safety occurs mainly at the local level. The State Controller’s Office (SCO) reports that in 2004–05 (the most recent year for which data are available), cities and counties together spent $24.1 billion on public safety. In contrast, the state is expected to provide about $3.6 billion in the current year to local governments to support public safety activities. Local autonomy over financing public safety is consistent with the idea that local communities should have wide discretion and control over policy areas for which the benefits and costs are realized locally. Nevertheless, in some cases it may be appropriate for the state to provide local communities with public safety funding—for example, if statewide objectives concerning crime are concerned.

Assistance the State Provides to Local Governments for Public Safety

The state provides financial assistance to local governments for various public safety activities, including both law enforcement and programs focused on preventing crime and reducing recidivism. These local assistance programs are funded through different departmental budgets, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Office of Emergency Services (OES), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Other local assistance is provided through state sales tax revenue and through subvention programs administered by SCO. (In addition, other state agencies, such as the State Department of Education, provide local assistance relating to public safety issues, such as the School Safety Block Grant. However, programs that do not directly involve state or local criminal justice agencies are outside the scope of this analysis.)

Altogether, under the Governor’s budget plan, state funding for local public safety would amount to $3.6 billion in 2007–08 and $3.7 billion in 2008–09. Under the Governor’s budget–balancing reductions, General Fund local assistance for public safety would be reduced by approximately $60 million in 2008–09. Figure 1 shows local assistance funding in both the current year and the Governor’s proposed amounts for the budget year.

As Figure 1 shows, the Governor’s proposal includes 10 percent reductions for most General Fund public safety local assistance programs in the budget year. The proposal also includes some program reductions of approximately 4 percent in the current year, particularly in those law enforcement local assistance programs that are administered by OES. These current–year reductions would recover funding for grant assistance that has already been committed, but has not yet gone out to recipients to pay for reimbursable program expenses.

The administration has indicated that the rationale behind an across–the–board 10 percent reduction in the budget year for General Fund programs is to ensure that all programs are treated equally. However, not all programs are the same. Specifically, programs differ in terms of objectives, sources of funding, and overall effectiveness. Rather than making proportionately equal reductions in funding for local assistance programs, we instead recommend that the Legislature prioritize program reductions according to the following criteria:

• Eliminate programs that are solely a local concern—in other words, those programs that lack specific statewide objectives.
• Eliminate programs that have demonstrated poor results in achieving their goals. For programs that have not reported results, reduce funding by 25 percent and make additional funding beyond the budget year contingent on demonstrating program effectiveness.
• Eliminate General Fund support for programs that could be receiving special funds or funds from other sources.
• Consolidate programs that have overlapping objectives.
• For all programs that do not fall into one of these categories, or for programs that are a high state priority, maintain funding at the current level.

The following sections evaluate the individual General Fund local assistance programs for public safety, including those housed at CDCR, those that are disbursed by SCO, and the related grant programs that are administered by DOJ and OES. In addition, we examine the billions of dollars that are provided to local governments for public safety activities through sales tax revenue that flows to them via the Local Public Safety Fund. In this analysis, we have not evaluated other special fund programs or programs that receive matching federal funds, although, altogether these programs provide tens of millions of additional dollars to local governments.

Program Funds Disbursed by SCO

Overview

The SCO provides fiscal control for the receipt and disbursement of public funds. Certain local assistance programs—generally those that allocate funds on a formulaic rather than a competitive basis—are administered by SCO. The SCO disburses the funds directly to local government entities, which then report back to SCO on their expenditure of the funds.

In the current year, SCO will disburse $292 million in General Fund to local governments for public safety, as well as $2.9 billion in special funds supported by sales tax revenue. Under the administration’s proposal, SCO General Fund programs would each receive a 10 percent reduction, resulting in the provision of $262 million for local governments. Under the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) alternative approach, the SCO General Fund programs would be eliminated, although the funding from part of one program, equal to $119 million, would be combined with an existing CDCR program (discussed later in this analysis). Figure 2 summarizes SCO–administered General Fund programs under both the Governor’s budget proposal and under the LAO alternative approach to funding criminal justice local assistance programs.

Neither the administration’s proposal nor the LAO alternative changes the amount of special fund assistance for local government administered by SCO, which is projected to increase in the budget year due to increased tax receipts. However, in “Part V” of The 2008–09 Budget: Perspectives and Issues (P&I), we outline a proposal to redirect some of these special funds from one local government public safety function to another as part of a plan to shift the parole supervision of lower–level offenders from the state to county probation departments.  

Local Public Safety Fund

Background. In 1993, the Legislature proposed and the voters enacted Proposition 172, which amended the State Constitution to include a one–half–cent sales tax to help finance local public safety. The Legislature proposed the measure in order to mitigate the effects of a shift in local property taxes that prompted fears that local governments might have to reduce expenditures on public safety. The revenues collected from the sales tax accumulate in the Local Public Safety Fund, which SCO then disburses to individual counties according to the county’s proportion of total state taxable sales. Local governments can use the money to supplement certain specified public safety budgets, such as those of the police, sheriffs, and district attorneys.

Significant Growth in Fund Revenue. When established in 1993–94, the Local Public Safety Fund provided approximately $1.4 billion to local governments. Over time, as sales tax revenue has increased due to both economic growth and general price inflation, the fund has grown significantly (see Figure 3). In 2007–08, the fund is projected to provide approximately $2.9 billion, increasing to $3 billion in 2008–09. This translates into an increase of $1.6 billion since the fund’s inception, which, even after adjusting for inflation (1993–94 dollars), still results in a $700 million increase. In percentage terms, the fund has grown, on average, by 5.2 percent annually, which is well above the average annual rate of inflation of 3.5 percent (as measured by a U.S. index for state and local government purchases).

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor’s budget plan proposes to make no change in this subvention program. This would result in an increase in state spending for these purposes of about $125 million in 2008–09.

LAO Recommendation. We recommend no changes to this program, given that these are special funds. However, we do recommend that the Legislature consider the historical $700 million increase in the purchasing power of these funds when evaluating the level of funding that should be provided to other local assistance programs for public safety. Also, in the 2008–09 P&I, we discuss the possibility of redirecting a portion of these special funds from cities to counties as part of a proposal to shift the community supervision of certain low–level offenders from state parole to county probation.

Citizens’ Option for Public Safety/ Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act

Background. Under the Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) program, counties and cities receive state funds, on a population basis, to augment primarily local funds for district attorneys, county jail construction and operation, and front–line law enforcement. An oversight committee in each county is responsible for reviewing local government expenditures of funds to ensure statutory compliance and reporting on expenditures annually to SCO.

In 2000, the Legislature modified the structure of the COPS program by enacting Chapter 353 (AB 1913, Cardenas), which added a new juvenile justice component, commonly referred to as the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). The JJCPA program provides funding to local governments for services that target at–risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families. Additional reporting requirements for the JJCPA program include an annual report that each county must submit to the Corrections Standard Authority (CSA), which then must compile an overall annual report on the program’s effectiveness and outcomes.

By statute, funding is divided equally between the COPS program and the JJCPA program. Thus, of the $238 million awarded in 2007–08, the COPS program received $119 million and the JJCPA program received $119 million.

The COPS Program Lacks Goals and Performance Measures. The authorizing legislation for the COPS program references a “compelling need for additional resources to be applied at the local level for the purpose of ensuring public safety.” Beyond this statement of purpose, the statute contains no definable goals or performance measures by which to judge this use of state resources. The expenditure reporting requirements only reveal information about how each local recipient spends its funds—for example, on equipment or personnel. (The most recent report available dates back to 2003–04.) Since there are no program evaluations by which to judge the program, its impact on public safety is unknown. In addition, the program appears to take what is largely a local government responsibility—police protection—and shift some of the cost to the state, without a strong policy rationale for doing so.

The JJCPA Program Duplicates Other Juvenile Justice Grant Program. In contrast to the COPS program, the JJCPA program does have a specific statewide objective—lowering the rate of juvenile crime. By statute, CSA must report annually on the program’s effectiveness in improving six outcomes, such as lowering juvenile arrest and incarceration rates. The most recent annual report shows some success in meeting three of the six outcomes. For example, the report finds that arrest rates for juveniles enrolled in JJCPA programs are 4 percent lower than arrest rates for a control group of youth. However, we note that the JJCPA program appears to provide funding that is duplicative with another juvenile crime reduction program described later in this section, the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding.

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor’s budget proposes a 10 percent reduction in the COPS and JJCPA programs for 2008–09, which would bring funding down to $107 million for each program.

LAO Recommendation. We recommend eliminating the COPS program and consolidating the JJCPA program and the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding program. In the case of the COPS program, we find it difficult to justify using state resources to fund public safety services that lack a specific statewide objective and that have no identifiable results to evaluate. In contrast, the JJCPA program has well–defined statewide objectives and some success in demonstrating results. However, the funding is duplicative with funding provided though another local assistance program targeting juvenile crime. Instead of linking the JJCPA program with the unrelated COPS program, we recommend the enactment of state legislation to eliminate the COPS/JJCPA programs and consolidate the JJCPA and the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding (see further discussion of this program later in this analysis).

Small/Rural Sheriffs Grant Program

Background. By statute, the Small/Rural Sheriffs Grant program appropriates $500,000 annually from the General Fund to each of 37 county sheriff departments, for a total annual appropriation of $18.5 million. The program includes no reporting requirements on the expenditure of funds or the effectiveness of the funding. The only stated objective in the authorizing statute is to “enhance law enforcement efforts.”

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor’s proposal is to enact legislation to reduce the grant amounts from $500,000 to $450,000 in the budget year, for a total appropriation of about $17 million, a reduction of 10 percent.

LAO Recommendation. We recommend the enactment of legislation to eliminate the Small/Rural Sheriffs Grant program. Much like the COPS program, this program lacks identifiable and specific statewide objectives and does not report on its effectiveness at enhancing public safety.

Local Detention Facility Subventions

Background. Booking fees are charges that counties impose on cities and other local agencies to recover the costs associated with booking persons into the county jail. The Legislature first authorized the use of such charges over a decade ago and, since that time, it has provided some fiscal relief for cities facing these fees. Currently, the state restricts counties from charging booking fees and, in exchange, provides counties with subventions intended to offset the resulting loss in revenue.

However, under state law, this arrangement depends on the total annual appropriation provided by the state for such subventions. In years in which the state allocates $35 million or more in subventions to counties to support local detention facilities, counties are prohibited from charging booking fees. In years in which the state allocates less than $35 million, counties may charge booking fees in proportion to the amount appropriated that is less than $35 million. The Legislature appropriated $35 million in subventions in 2007–08.

Booking Fees on Cities Create Incentives for Efficient Use of Jail Space. Booking fees have been the source of much political wrangling among the state, counties, and cities. From a strict fiscal accountability perspective, booking fees make sense since they force cities to pay for some of the costs that they create when they send arrestees to county jail. In addition, booking fees result in a more cost–effective use of public resources. For example, they encourage cities to keep low–level offenders, such as those detained for public drunkenness, in municipal jails rather than sending them to county detention facilities. These city jails typically have much lower operating costs than county jails.

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor’s budget proposes a 10 percent reduction, dropping the funding level to about $32 million in 2008–09. The administration proposal does not change the statutes relating to booking fees.

LAO Recommendation. We recommend that the state eliminate the subventions it provides to counties not to charge booking fees since no statewide criminal justice objectives are being achieved through these subventions. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature change state law to clarify that counties are authorized to charge booking fees up to the actual administrative cost of a booking. Doing so will provide cities with the proper incentives for using county jail space efficiently and to ensure that the costs of bookings are borne where it is most appropriate—at the municipal level.

Programs Administered by CDCR

The CDCR is responsible for enhancing public safety by providing for the incarceration and supervision of criminal offenders and by providing rehabilitative programs to reintegrate offenders into the community. As such, the department administers certain local assistance programs to help it meet these goals.

In 2007–08, CDCR will administer $246 million in General Fund local assistance grants. Under the administration’s proposal, these grants would be cut by 10 percent to a funding level of $221 million. Under the LAO alternative approach to funding criminal justice local assistance programs, these General Fund grants would increase to $304 million. Figure 4 summarizes General Fund local assistance grant programs under the Governor’s proposal and the LAO alternative.

The CDCR also administers federally funded local grant programs totaling $13 million. Neither the administration’s proposal nor the LAO alternative would affect these federally supported programs.

Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding

Background. The CDCR provides $201 million to counties for public safety programs targeting juveniles. Of this amount, $168 million is directed to support various county probation programs for at–risk youth, juvenile offenders and their families, and another $33 million is allocated separately to counties to assist in their operation of juvenile camps and ranches. The authorizing statute stipulates a fixed allocation amount for each county for the probation support program, but allows the camp–specific funding to vary annually based on the proportionate number of occupied camp and ranch beds in each county. The CSA is responsible for administering the program funds, which, for administrative purposes, it refers to as the Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding (JPCF).

The JPCF Overlaps With Other Juvenile Justice Grant Program. As noted in our earlier discussion of the COPS/JJCPA program, much of the funding provided to juvenile programs through the JJCPA program is duplicative with JPCF funding (see Figure 5 for a comparison of the two programs). However, unlike the JJCPA program, the JPCF program is not required to report on specific outcome measures. The latest annual report from CSA only contains statistical information on the number of youths entering and exiting programs—it does not contain data on actual youth crime outcomes, such as arrest and incarceration rates. Thus, it is not possible to assess the program’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, the program’s similarities to the JJCPA program, which has demonstrated results, as well as the overall declining juvenile crime rate over the past several years, indicate that the program likely is effective at reducing juvenile crime.

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor’s proposal is to reduce JPCF funding by 10 percent, or about $20 million in the budget year to approximately $181 million.

LAO Recommendation. Given the similarities between the two programs, and the results demonstrated by the JJCPA program, we recommend that the Legislature consolidate funding for the two juvenile crime reduction local assistance programs, and provide them with a total of $304 million in funding. This level of funding is the sum of the budgets of the two programs (before the Governor’s proposed reductions), reduced by 5 percent to reflect anticipated administrative savings. We also recommend that the Legislature adopt budget trailer bill language creating a statutory framework for the consolidated program similar to the existing JJCPA statute. For example, the program would continue to require the regular reporting of program outcomes and encourage collaboration among local agencies. The program would also continue to allocate $33 million to camps and the remainder to juvenile crime reduction programs. We recommend, for administrative purposes, placing the consolidated program in CDCR and retaining the JPCF name.  

Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program

Background. The Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) program was designed as a demonstration grant project to aid counties in finding new collaborative strategies for more effectively responding to the mentally ill offenders who cycle through already overcrowded county jails. Services provided through the MIOCRG program vary by project but have often included housing support, employment training, benefits advocacy, and day treatment. Different projects target different populations, but most projects focus on soon–to–be–released offenders transitioning out of custody.

In 2007–08, the program received a $30 million appropriation that, when combined with $40 million in funds left unspent from the previous year, resulted in $70 million being available. The administration budgeted $40 million of the total available for 2007–08 and reverted the $30 million remaining for the current year to the General Fund. As of the end of the first quarter of 2007–08, however, counties had only spent approximately $3 million of the available $40 million.

Special Funds Available for MIOCRG Programs. Passed in 2004 by the voters as Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act funds county services for mentally ill individuals. While the act prohibits spending funds on individuals incarcerated in state prison or on parole, there are no restrictions on using the funds to pay for services for offenders in county jail or on probation, the target group of MIOCRG programs. In fact, the statute explicitly states that counties “shall consider ways to provide services to those established pursuant to the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program.” As of September 2007, close to $300 million remained in Proposition 63’s Mental Health Services Fund for investment in community mental health programs such as MIOCRG.

Administration’s Proposal. The Governor is proposing to reduce MIOCRG funding to about $41 million in 2008–09, which is a reduction of 10 percent from a $45 million base.

LAO Recommendation. Since special funding is available to support these program services, we recommend that, effective for the last quarter of the current fiscal year, the Legislature eliminate General Fund support for the MIOCRG program and encourage counties concerned with the resulting loss of funding to pursue replacement funding available through the Mental Health Services Fund. We estimate that this approach would save $10 million in the current year and $45 million in the budget year.

Programs Administered by DOJ

The DOJ is responsible for ensuring that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced. In order to achieve this objective, DOJ provides assistance to local communities through several grant programs. The combined total budgeted for local assistance programs administered by the DOJ from all fund sources is just over $11 million. The single DOJ local assistance program that relies on the General Fund is used to support vertical prosecutions and is discussed below in the section on OES programs, because it relates to a similar OES grant program that also helps fund such prosecutions. In addition to these grant programs, there are other programs that are tantamount to local assistance. For example, under the California Methamphetamine Strategy (CALMS) program to combat methamphetamine production, DOJ works with local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute crimes.

Programs Administered by OES

Since 2003–04, OES’ Law Enforcement and Victim Services (LEVS) division has administered criminal justice grant programs formerly managed by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning. In 2006–07, these programs provided more than $75 million of General Fund support. This local assistance is in addition to approximately $150 million of state special fund and federally funded local assistance grants administered by LEVS in the same year. Generally, the administration proposes to cut all General Fund supported LEVS programs by about 4 percent in 2007–08, and to cut all General Fund supported LEVS programs by 10 percent in 2008–09. The following analysis evaluates OES’ General Fund law enforcement–related local assistance programs. (We did not evaluate the victims services–related local assistance provided through OES’ LEVS division.) In total, our recommendations result in a General Fund savings within OES’ budget of approximately $28 million in 2008–09, as compared to the administration’s proposal for these programs. An accounting of proposed program expenditures is shown in Figure 6.

War on Methamphetamine Program

Background. The California Multi–Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (CAL–MMET) program, which is also known as the War on Methamphetamine program, provides additional resources to county sheriff’s offices for investigators and prosecutors specializing in methamphetamine offenses, as well as support staff, equipment, training, and facilities. In 2001, the Central Valley region was identified as an area of the state with a relatively high concentration of methamphetamine activity. Following that designation, the CAL–MMET program was funded at a base level of $9.5 million General Fund for six counties in the Central Valley region—Sacramento, Fresno, Kern, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties. In 2006–07, the CAL–MMET program was expanded statewide on a two–year, limited–term basis from 6 counties to 40 counties at a cost of an additional $20 million from the General Fund annually, bringing total program costs to about $29 million.  

Administration’s Proposal. In total, the administration’s proposal would result in an appropriation of about $27 million from the General Fund to the CAL–MMET program in the budget year. This funding level reflects administration proposals to (1) continue permanently the $20 million in limited–term funding for the program which would otherwise expire at the end of the current fiscal year and (2) then cut the overall $29 million level of funding by $2.9 million as part of its budget reductions.

Program Duplicates Existing Funding at DOJ. At the same time that additional CAL–MMET funding was provided to OES, the DOJ’s Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement CALMS program received a permanent augmentation of about $6 million from the General Fund and 30 positions for related efforts to combat the spread of methamphetamine, particularly in rural areas of the state. This funding continues at $4.5 million in 2008–09.

Program Evaluations Unavailable Until October 2008. When the Legislature provided the increased funding for both the CAL–MMET and CALMS programs in 2006–07, it required evaluations of each program by January 2008 (to be performed by California State University, Sacramento). The reports were intended to assist the Legislature in making determinations about future program funding. To date, no evaluation of either program has been completed, and the administration reports that the evaluations are not expected to be completed until October 2008.

Most U.S. Methamphetamine Production Shifted to Mexico. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, methamphetamine production in the United States appears to be on the decline. Recent federal and state laws regarding the sale and purchase of precursor and essential chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamines have resulted in a decline in the number of clandestine “meth” labs nationwide. Larger labs, in particular, have shifted production to Mexico.

Legislation May Be More Effective Than Policing Production. Research by the Drug Enforcement Administration suggests that the most promising means of eliminating the smaller meth production labs is to cut off their supply of meth precursor chemicals, key ingredients in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Those states significantly restricting the availability of these meth precursor chemicals—typically, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine—have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of smaller methamphetamine labs. For example, Oklahoma has employed a 9 grams per month, per customer limit to reduce production. California currently has a 9 grams per purchase limit, rather than a monthly limit.

LAO Recommendation. Given the duplication of funding, overall reduction of meth production in the United States, and the lack of the required reports on program performance, we recommend that the Legislature (1) reduce base funding for the CAL–MMET program by 25 percent ($2.4 million General Fund) in 2008–09, and (2) reject the administration’s proposal to continue permanently the limited–term funding for the program. This would provide the program with $7.1 million from the General Fund in the budget year. Additionally, we recommend that the program administer grants to counties on a competitive basis so that available funds can go where there continues to be the highest level of meth production. The CAL–MMET program may be reevaluated by the Legislature at a later date once it has received and reviewed the required evaluation reports.

Vertical Prosecution Grant Program

Background. The OES Vertical Prosecution Block Grant program is designed to allow (1) a prosecutor to focus on a reduced number of cases—including narcotic vendor, career criminal, child abuse, statutory rape, and elder abuse cases—and (2) the same prosecutor to follow the case from filing through sentencing. The DOJ also administers a vertical prosecution grant program. Specifically, the DOJ’s Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program (SAPP) provides $3 million for grants to district attorneys and city attorneys for the vertical prosecution of domestic violence offenses.

Studies have shown that vertical prosecution maximizes the likelihood of successful convictions.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes a 10 percent reduction to the OES vertical prosecution program in the budget year. This would result in General Fund savings of about $1.6 million and would continue funding at about $15 million.

LAO Recommendation. Since grants are distributed statewide and the vertical prosecution is a proven model, we recommend that the Legislature reject the administration’s proposed reduction to this OES program. Rather, we recommend that DOJ’s SAPP ($3 million) be consolidated with OES’s Vertical Prosecution Grant Program ($16 million) and maintain the combined funding for the OES and DOJ programs at their existing level. We also recommend that the $150,000 currently provided to DOJ from the General Fund to administer the SAPP grants be eliminated as efficiency savings. This proposal would result in a $19 million General Fund program allocation through OES’s budget item.

High Technology Theft Apprehension and Prosecution Program

Background. High technology crimes are defined as being those crimes in which technology is used as an instrument in committing a crime, or in which technology is the target of a crime (examples include computer hacking and intellectual property theft). Historically, the High Technology Theft Apprehension and Prosecution Program provided about $10 million from the General Fund to support five local high technology crime task forces, and two related database and training projects.

In 2001, the Legislature expanded the program to include five regional identity theft units that focus solely on identity theft crimes. As a result, funding for the program increased to $13.3 million from the General Fund. Under the program, equal grant allocations go to high technology task forces in Marin, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara Counties (each task force gets about $2.5 million), with additional resources allocated to DOJ and the California District Attorneys Association to maintain a crime database and to provide training. The General Fund portion of program funding has a 25 percent local government match, bringing total program funds to $16.6 million.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration’s budget proposes a 10 percent reduction in funding for this program in the budget year (for a General Fund reduction of $1.3 million). The result would be approximately $12 million of continued General Fund support for the program, for total program funding of at least about $15 million when the local matching funds requirement is taken into account.

$10 Million in Spending Focused on 1,500 Victims. In 2006–07, the program’s high technology task forces investigated about 1,000 crimes involving about 1,500 victims at a General Fund cost of $10 million. This means that on average, the state spent more than $10,000 per investigation, or $6,800 per victim on these types of crimes. The identity theft task forces, which were funded with $3.3 million of General Fund support, investigated about 1,400 cases statewide which involved nearly 17,000 victims of identity theft. This means that on average, the state spent more than $2,300 per identity theft investigation, or about $200 per victim.

LAO Recommendation. As a result of the high cost to the state of investigating each case, and to better target funding in this program, we recommend that the Legislature reduce total General Fund support to this program by 25 percent ($3.3 million General Fund) by reducing the funding provided for high–tech theft cases. Our recommendation would hold harmless the amount of existing funding to identity theft units and to DOJ for the crimes database. This would result in approximately $10 million General Fund support for the program ($3.3 million for identity theft units, $6.7 million for other high–tech crimes units, and $60,000 to DOJ for crimes database).

Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Teams Program

Background. The Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) program provides funds to certain county sheriff’s departments to monitor habitual sexual offenders and to collect data to determine if law enforcement is effective in reducing violent sexual assault offenses. The SAFE program was authorized by Chapter 1090, Statutes of 2002 (AB 1858, Hollingsworth). The 2006–07 Budget Act appropriated $5.7 million from the General Fund for the first time to support a total of seven SAFE teams in Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Shasta, and Tulare Counties. Program funding is allocated based on each county’s share of the offending population, and may only go to those counties that have 200 or more registered sex offenders. There is no local match requirement. San Diego, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties operate SAFE teams without state funds from this program.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes a 10 percent cut in the program in the budget year. This would result in General Fund savings of about $570,000 and would continue funding at $5.1 million in the budget year.

New Program Augments Existing Funding. The SAFE program recently allocated its first grant funds (May 2007) due to various program delays in the initial year of the program. As a result, performance data on this program is limited. Until 2006–07, Santa Clara and Los Angeles Counties SAFE teams operated without state funds.

LAO Recommendation. The state has only recently begun to provide funds for this program. Prior to 2006–07, SAFE teams had been funded entirely with local agency funds. Thus, we recommend this program be eliminated in the budget year. This would result in $5.7 million in General Fund savings.

Rural Crime Prevention Programs

Background. The state supports two rural crime prevention programs—the Central Valley Rural Crime Prevention Program and the Central Coast Rural Crime Prevention Program. These programs provide a combined total of $4.1 million from the General Fund to 12 local district attorney‘s offices and to one sheriff’s department to support investigations and arrests related to agricultural crime. In particular, the funding targets the theft of agricultural equipment, livestock, and produce. There is no local match requirement. Grant recipients include the district attorney’s offices in the eight Central Valley counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare; four central coast counties of San Benito, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo; and the Monterey County Sheriff.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes a 10 percent cut to the program in the budget year, resulting in a General Fund reduction of $410,000 to the programs. This reduction would result in the allocation of $3.7 million to the programs in 2008–09, with approximately $3 million provided to the Central Valley Rural Crime Prevention Program and $720,000 to the Central Coast Rural Crime Prevention Program.

Funding Is Not Tied to Crime Rate. The majority of funding for rural crime prevention is provided to Central Valley counties and is allocated based on that county’s percent of agricultural production within this group of Central Valley counties. The formula does not take into account relative property crime rates in each county. The remainder of the funding is allocated to coastal counties based on eligible counties’ historical funding levels and crop valuations.

Some Counties Have Lower Property Crime Rates Than the State Average. Some current–year recipients of grant funds for rural crime prevention have property crime rates less than the statewide average. For example, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Kings, San Benito, Madera, and Monterey Counties have property crime rates per 1,000 population that are lower than the average rate of property crime in the state.

LAO Recommendation. Funding for the Central Valley Rural Crime Prevention Program and the Central Coast Rural Crime Prevention Program is split into two separate grant programs even though the recipients are similar and grants are provided for the same purpose. As such, we recommend that program funding be consolidated into a single rural crime prevention grant. We further recommend that future grant allocations be tied to both agricultural production and property crime rates. As noted above, a number of counties receiving funding have property crime rates that are less than the rate of property crime in the state. Consequently, we question the need to continue the funding at its current level of $4.1 million. Instead, we recommend reducing the grant by 25 percent—for General Fund savings of $1 million in 2008–09. All counties currently receiving funding can remain eligible; however, the administration should prioritize the reduced grant dollars to counties facing the largest rural crime rates. Since the majority of current funding is allocated according to statute, any changes would require a budget trailer bill.

Gang Violence Suppression Multi–Component Program

Background. The Gang Violence Suppression Multi–Component (CVSMC) Program awards grants to projects that divert potentially dangerous gang activity into more positive and constructive behavior. This collaboration must include law enforcement, probation, prosecution, education, and prevention components. The program currently has a 10 percent local match requirement and grants are allocated on a competitive basis. The Cities of Oxnard and Sacramento and the Counties of Los Angeles and Napa were grant recipients in 2007–08.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes a 10 percent cut to the program in the budget year. This would result in General Fund savings of about $180,000 and would continue funding at $1.6 million.

Recent State Efforts to Coordinate Approach to Antigang Funding. The 2007–08 Budget Act appropriated $9.5 million from a state special fund, the Restitution Fund, for the California Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention (CAL–GRIP) Program. (The Restitution Fund receives its revenues mainly from restitution fines and orders paid by offenders convicted of crimes in California.) In the budget year, the administration proposes to continue this CAL–GRIP funding and create the Office of Youth and Gang Policy within OES, headed by a new state antigang coordinator, to allocate the CAL–GRIP grants.

LAO Recommendation. In light of recent efforts to coordinate and consolidate antigang grant funds in a single source, we recommend that the Legislature eliminate General Fund support for the CVSMC Program in the budget year, and instead encourage past recipients to apply for CAL–GRIP funds.

Multi–Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium Program

Background. The Multi–Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium (MAGEC) program aims to reduce gang activity in the County of Fresno.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes a 10 percent cut to the program in the budget year. This would result in General Fund savings of about $9,300 and would continue funding at $84,000.

LAO Recommendation. As noted above, the 2007–08 Budget Act provided increased antigang funding from sources outside of the General Fund. As with the CVSMC, we recommend eliminating General Fund spending for MAGEC and instead encouraging the current recipients to apply for CAL–GRIP funds.

CALGANG Program

Background. The CALGANG program is a statewide database that provides gang intelligence information to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in order to solve gang–related crimes.

Administration’s Proposal. The administration proposes to reduce by 10 percent the grant funding for the CALGANG database. This would result in a reduction of $30,000 to the program and a 2008–09 funding level of $270,000 General Fund.

LAO Recommendation. We recommend that the Legislature reject the administration’s proposal to cut the grant for maintenance of the CALGANG database since it serves a statewide purpose. Our proposal would fully fund the project with $300,000 from the General Fund.

Summary of LAO Recommendations

The Governor is proposing across–the–board cuts of 10 percent in the budget year for most local assistance public safety programs that altogether yield about $60 million in savings. We recommend instead that the Legislature evaluate the merits of each program individually in order to achieve more significant cost reductions. Figure 7 compares our recommended approach to the Governor’s proposal. Our recommendations yield about $208 million more in General Fund savings than the Governor’s budget plan by eliminating or reducing funding for programs that have not demonstrated results, could be consolidated, do not serve a statewide purpose, or could be supported by a special fund.