COURSE MATERIALS...14. 2012-13 Allocations from the Juvenile Justice Subaccount of the Law...

L E A R N . G R O W . A C H I E V E

COURSE MATERIALS

Realignment 301: Fund Flows in Public Safety Realignment Dorothy Thrush, Elizabeth Howard Espinosa, and Danielle Enriquez CI 307a

www.csacinstitute.org

Realignment 301 Fund Flows in Public Safety Realignment

TABLE OF CONTENTS February 7, 2014

1. Agenda 1

2. Realignment 301: Fund Flows in Public Safety Realignment PowerPoint Presentation 2

3. Major Milestones: Over Four Decades of the State-Local Fiscal Relationship (LAO Chart) 19

4. Local Revenue Fund 2011 – State Structure 20

5. 2011 Realignment Revenue Estimates – Governor’s Proposed 2014-15 Budget (January 2014) 21

6. Purposes of Realignment – Penal Code Section 17.5 and 3450 22

7. Background Materials for County Administrators and Executives 25 about Allocating AB 109 Realignment Funds Among Counties

8. Long-term Allocation Framework – Realignment Allocation Committee with input from CAOAC 31

9. Realignment Resource List 32

10. County by County Allocation Information/Links 34

11. 2011 Realignment Superstructure Trailer Bill: Reader’s Guide 35

Activity Materials

12. State Controller’s Office Local Revenue Fund 2011 Reconciliation (All Accounts) 48

13. State Controller’s Office Local Revenue Fund 2011 Reconciliation (Growth) 52

14. 2012-13 Allocations from the Juvenile Justice Subaccount of the Law Enforcement Services Account within the Local Revenue Fund 2011 – Allocation by County 53

Supplemental Documents

15. Activity: 2011 Realignment Law Enforcement Accounts – Juvenile Justice Calculations

16. Local Revenue Fund 2011 Distribution and Authorized Funding

CSAC Realignment 301 Fund Flows in Public Safety Realignment

02/07/14 10 am – 3:30 pm, CSAC Conference Center

• Introductions

• State Level View

o Including “Base” and “Growth”

• County Level View

o Including Key Issues and Budgeting

• Future Considerations

o Lessons from Realignment, What’s Next?

• Closing Comments

1

Realignment 301: Fund Flows in Public Safety Realignment

{


February 7, 2014

Dorothy Thrush | County of San DiegoElizabeth Howard Espinosa | CSAC

Danielle Enriquez | County of San Diego

{Discussion

5 minute small group discussion Your Expectations for TodayYour Top 3 Questions

I. State Level View Including “Base” and “Growth”

II. County Level ViewKey Issues and Budgeting, Forecasting

III. Future ConsiderationsLessons from Realignment, What’s Next?

Agenda

2


Realignment prior to 2011

1991 – Foster Care County Share 1993 – Proposition 172 1997 – Trial Court Funding 2007 and 2009 – Juvenile Justice Realignment (YOBG) –

Shift responsibilities to Counties - State General Fund 2009 – Shift the funding source for certain programs from

State General Fund to VLF Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS), Juvenile

Justice Crime Prevention Act programs, local juvenile probation activities, and booking fee payments

Realignment and Law Enforcement

See Attachment #1

Realigned Source of Funding • Juvenile Probation and Camps• YOBG and Juvenile Reentry• Trial Court Security• Multiagency Juvenile Justice – JJCPA• COPS• Booking Fees• Rural/small county sheriff• Cal EMA programs

Realigned Responsibilities from the State to the Counties with a Funding Source

• AB 109 – Community Corrections

2011 Realignment for Law Enforcement

3


{ Part I

STATE LEVEL VIEW

How the Funds Flow to the Top Level Accounts

Local Revenue Fund 2011 VLFSales Tax

Fiscal Year Mental Health (1991 Responsibilities)

Support Services

LawEnforcement

11‐12 Fixed $ By Account By Account

12‐13 Fixed $ 64.1975% 35.8025%

13‐14 Fixed $ 63.3855% 36.6145%

14‐15 Fixed $ Calculation Calculation

What is the Impact of Proposition 30?

How the Funds Flow to the Top Level Accounts Fiscal Year Mental Health

(1991 Responsibilities)

Support Services

LawEnforcement

11‐12 Fixed $ By Account By Account

12‐13 Fixed $ 64.1975% 35.8025%

13‐14 Fixed $ 63.3855% 36.6145%

14‐15 Fixed $ Calculation Calculation

How is this Percentage Calculated?• FY 12-13 Base Amount• Adjust for Community Corrections Subaccount “Cap”• Plus FY 12-13 Growth Amounts for Certain Accounts• Calculate the Total• Determine the Percentage

4


• Sales Tax revenues are transferred to the Mental Health Account first

• Sales Tax revenues provide a backfill if VLF falls short of the guaranteed level for the ELEAS account

• “Base” amounts are targets, not guarantees for the Sales Tax accounts

• If revenues are sufficient - “Growth” funds are distributed after “Base” is achieved

Key Facts – State Level Accounts

See Attachment #2

Local Revenue Fund 2011State Structure

Local Revenue Fund 2011

Mental Health Account(1991 Mental Health Responsibilities)

Support Services Account

Protective Services Subaccount

County Intervention Support Services

Subaccount

Behavioral Health Subaccount

Women and Children’s Residential Treatment

Special Account

Law Enforcement Services Account

Trial Court Security Subaccount

Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account

Youthful Offender Block Grant

Special Account

District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount

Community Corrections Subaccount

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities

Subaccount

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Growth Special Account

Sales and Use Tax Growth Account

(Excess revenues above base allocations)

Support Services Growth Subaccount

(65%)

Protective Services Growth Special

Account

Behavioral Health Services Growth Special Account

Mental Health Subaccount

Law Enforcement Services Growth Subaccount

(35%)

Trial Court Security Growth Special

Account

Community Corrections

Growth Special Account

Juvenile Justice Growth Special

Account

District Attorney & Public Defender Growth Special

Account







Subaccount



Special Account





Youthful Offender Block

Grant Special Account




Subaccount


Sales and use Tax Growth Account



(65%)


Account




(35%)


Account

Community Corrections Growth

Special Account


Account


Account First Transfer from Sales Tax

5








Subaccount



Special Account





Youthful Offender Block

Grant Special Account




Subaccount

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Growth Special

Account

Sales and use Tax Growth Account



(65%)


Account




(35%)


Account

Community Corrections Growth

Special Account


Account


Account

Sales Tax Revenue provides backfill if VLF falls short of guaranteed allocation

Local Revenue Fund 2011Law Enforcement Services




Youthful Offender Block Grant Special

Account




Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount


Local Revenue Fund 2011Law Enforcement Services




Youthful Offender Block Grant Special

Account





Local Innovation Subaccount


• Only at the local level• Beginning in FY 15-16• Receives 10% of

Growth from certain accounts

6


Is a target amount that must be achieved before funds can flow to a Growth Account

Is not a minimum, not a guaranteed amount, not related to workload

A “Rolling Base” is a Base amount that is adjusted each year by the amount received in the Growth Account in a previous year

All funds received in a fiscal year flow to the “Base” requirement first

Base Amounts Defined

Law EnforcementServices Account

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Growth Special

Account

Sales and Use TaxGrowth Account (Excess revenues above

base allocations)

Support ServicesGrowth Subaccount

(65%)


(35%)

Trial Court SecurityGrowth Special Account

Community Corrections Growth Special Account

Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account

District Attorney &Public Defender


Local Revenue Fund 2011Growth

SupportServices Growth

Subaccount


$214.8 (65%) $115.7 (35%)Trial Court Security $11.6 (10%)Juvenile Justice $11.6 (10%)Community Corrections $86.8 (75%)District Attorney/Public Defender $5.8 (5%)

Growth Amounts FY 12-13

7


Will there be Growth in Future Years?

See Attachment #3

Activity

Juvenile JusticeFY 12-13 Growth

See Exercise Materials - Attachment #10-13


Program State Level Guaranteed

Amount

Method of Allocation to Counties

COPS (GC 30061-30063) $107,100,000 DOF based on population, $100,000 minimum for each law enforcement jurisdiction

JJCPA (GC 30061-30063) $107,100,000 DOF based on population

Booking Fees (GC 29552) $35,000,000 Statutory Allocation

Small and Rural Sheriffs (GC 30070)

$18,500,000 Statutory Allocation

Juvenile Probation (WIC 18220)

$151,840.000 Statutory Allocation

Juvenile Camps (WIC 18220.1) $29,430,000 DOF schedule based on beds occupied, within rated capacity, as reported monthly

Former OES Programs $40,930,000 Statutory Allocation

TOTAL $489,900,000

8


Review If the dedicated funding source is insufficient

for ELEAS, what happens?

Did ELEAS require Sales Tax Funds in FY 2012-13?

What does the term “Base” mean in 2011 Realignment?

What has to occur for Growth funds to be available?

{ Part II

COUNTY LEVEL VIEW

Key IssuesHow County Allocations are

CalculatedWhere to Find Information

For More Information – See Handouts Titled Resource List with Links and

County by County Allocation Information

Law Enforcement Accounts at the County Level

9


• Legislative requirements• Create a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 • Create the subaccounts in the Local Revenue Fund

• Optional • The Fund type - Counties can use Trust Funds or

Special Revenue Funds

• Objective• A structure to distinguish amounts by program, identify

remaining unspent amounts

How Counties Manage Funds -Accounting Framework

Trial Court Security

Account

• A Rolling Base• No Reporting Required

Use of Funds

• Sheriff Provided Court Security

Key Issues

• Shift in Dynamics - New Facilities and Change in Service Levels

Trial Court Security –County Allocations

Base Allocation

• In Statute – Based on 2011 Contract Amounts

Growth Allocation

• Same Percentages as for Base Allocation

10


Budgeting for Trial Court Security San Diego Example

Community Corrections – AB 109

Account

•Capped Allocation through FY 14‐15

•This Account Receives the Majority of Growth Funds IF Available

•Rolling Base Beginning in FY 15‐16

•Some Data reporting to CPOC and BSCC

AB 109 Statewide Allocations ($ in Millions)

$354.3

FY 13‐14

$842.9 $998.9 $934.1

FY 12‐13FY 11‐12 FY 14‐15

11



Use of Funds

• Implementation of Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011, Public Safety Services, PostreleaseCommunity Supervision Act

Key Issues

• Counties Required to Manage within Resource Levels based on DOF Estimates and Potential Growth Funds

• Longer Term Allocations in Progress

Proposition 30, 2012:

“The funds deposited into a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 shall not be used by local agencies to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services.”

Requirements regarding Supplantation

Community Corrections/AB 109 –County Allocations

Base Allocation

• Through FY 13-14, in statute• FY 14-15 and beyond,

Department of Finance schedule

Growth Allocation

• Separate percentage allocation by county – Not the same as for the Base Allocation

• Department of Finance schedule

12


Base Allocation Formulas and Factors

FY 11/12 - 60/30/10 60% Offender ADP 30% Population (18-64) 10% SB 678 performance

FY 12/13 and 13/14 – Best of 3 Formulas* First Year Formula Population Ages 18-64 Adjusted Projected ADP

*Guaranteed minimum: Year 1 dollar amount doubled



Category % / $ Dedicated Description

Caseload issues• Caseload per capita• Total actual v. total estimate• $ / caseload

42.5% / $14.7 mil• 16.5% / $5.6 mil• 10.0% / $3.5 mil• 16.5% / $5.6 mil

Three elements to address various caseload impacts on individual counties based on first 12 months of 1170(h) and PRCS headcount

County minimum 27.5 % / $9.5 mil Distributed on each county’s adult population (aged 18‐64)

SB 678 performance 25% / $8.7 mil County’s 2012 SB 678 performance as proxy for legislative intent / community corrections practices

Small county accommodation 2.5% / $870K For counties with up to 30K in adult (aged 18‐64) population

Prison impacts 2.5% / $870K Per‐inmate impact

Growth Allocation Formulas and Factors

Community Corrections – AB 109Longer Term Allocation Formula

No legislation required, DOF Schedule only

CSAC and the Realignment Allocation Committee will make recommendations

A longer term, but not permanent, formula

Review Allocation Framework principles (in materials)

Timeframe for recommendation

See Attachment #6

13



Activity

Community Corrections / AB 109

FY 14-15 Strategies

Juvenile Justice YOBG

Account

• A Rolling Base• Reporting to BSCC Required

Use of Funds

• Per Statute and Plan Submitted to BSCC

Key Issues

• Annual shift in County Allocations• Counties notified of Allocation After Start of the

Fiscal Year• Projecting the County Allocation

14


Juvenile Justice YOBG – County Allocations

Base Allocation

• Department of Finance – 50% juvenile population – 50% juvenile felony dispositions – to determine a percentage share

• Posted at by DOF in October

Growth Allocation


Juvenile Reentry Grants

Account

• A Rolling Base• No Reporting Required

Use of Funds

• Juvenile Custody and Supervision

Key Issues

• Annual shift in County Allocations• Counties notified of Allocation After Start

of the Fiscal Year• Projecting the County Allocation

Juvenile Reentry Grants –County Allocations

Base Allocation

• Department of Finance schedule• The formula includes an “amount

per offender” as one factor in determining county percentage shares

• Posted by DOF in October

Growth Allocation


15


Preparing for Economic Fluctuations

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

($ in Millions)

Down 17%

Over 10 years, Up 20%

Proposition 172 Sales Tax

Developing Revenue Projections

Department of Finance

Legislative Analyst

Preparing for Economic Fluctuation

16


Reserve Accounts Flexible Program Structures Use of Growth Funding Priorities Other Actions?

Preparing for Economic Fluctuations

{ Part III

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Economic Fluctuations – Years in Which the Base was not Achieved

Continues to Expand and Change

Complex Formulas

Transferability

Realignment can be undone (AB 85) – but why is 2011 Realignment different?

Lessons from Health and Social Services Realignment

17


Reporting Requirements

Statutory Allocations Replace Calculated Allocations

Technical Adjustments

Other ideas?

Commitment to making realignment work

Areas of Possible Change

• Questions Remaining• Follow Up Needed• Create Your Action Items

Small Group Wrap Up

Elizabeth Howard Espinosa, Senior Legislative Representative, Administration of Justice, CSAC(916) 650-8131, [email protected]

Dorothy Thrush, Public Safety Group Finance Director, San Diego County(619) 531-4599, [email protected]

Danielle Enriquez, Finance Officer, Public Safety Group, San Diego County(619) 531-4521, [email protected]

Contact Information for Presenters

18

19

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #1

denrique

Typewritten Text

denrique

Typewritten Text

denrique

Typewritten Text







Subaccount



Special Account





Youthful Offender Block Grant

Special Account




Subaccount





(65%)


Account




(35%)


Account

Community Corrections



Account


Account 20

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #2

denrique

Typewritten Text

2011 Realignment Revenue EstimatesGovernor’s Proposed 2014-15 Budget (January 2014)*

* Revenue estimates will be updated in Governor’s 2014-15 May Revision.

21

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #3

Attachment #4

Purposes of Realignment Penal Code Section 17.5 and 3450 Penal Code §17.5 [AB 109 – Chapter 15, Statutes 2011] 17.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) The Legislature reaffirms its commitment to reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. (2) Despite the dramatic increase in corrections spending over the past two decades, national reincarceration rates for people released from prison remain unchanged or have worsened. National data show that about 40 percent of released individuals are reincarcerated within three years. In California, the recidivism rate for persons who have served time in prison is even greater than the national average. (3) Criminal justice policies that rely on building and operating more prisons to address community safety concerns are not sustainable, and will not result in improved public safety. (4) California must reinvest its criminal justice resources to support community-based corrections programs and evidence-based practices that will achieve improved public safety returns on this state's substantial investment in its criminal justice system. (5) Realigning low-level felony offenders who do not have prior convictions for serious, violent, or sex offenses to locally run community-based corrections programs, which are strengthened through community-based punishment, evidence-based practices, improved supervision strategies, and enhanced secured capacity, will improve public safety outcomes among adult felons and facilitate their reintegration back into society. (6) Community-based corrections programs require a partnership between local public safety entities and the county to provide and expand the use of community-based punishment for low-level offender populations. Each county's Local Community Corrections Partnership, as established in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1230, should play a critical role in developing programs and ensuring appropriate outcomes for low-level offenders. (7) Fiscal policy and correctional practices should align to promote a justice reinvestment strategy that fits each county. "Justice reinvestment" is a data-driven approach to reduce corrections and related criminal justice spending and reinvest savings in strategies designed to increase public safety. The purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal justice populations more cost-effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable. (8) "Community-based punishment" means correctional sanctions and programming encompassing a range of custodial and noncustodial responses to criminal or noncompliant offender activity. Community-based punishment may be provided by local public safety entities directly or through community-based public or private correctional service providers, and include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Short-term flash incarceration in jail for a period of not more than 10 days. (B) Intensive community supervision. (C) Home detention with electronic monitoring or GPS monitoring. (D) Mandatory community service. (E) Restorative justice programs such as mandatory victim restitution and victim-offender reconciliation.

22

Attachment #4

(F) Work, training, or education in a furlough program pursuant to Section 1208. (G) Work, in lieu of confinement, in a work release program pursuant to Section 4024.2. (H) Day reporting. (I) Mandatory residential or nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs. (J) Mandatory random drug testing. (K) Mother-infant care programs. (L) Community-based residential programs offering structure, supervision, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, literacy programming, employment counseling, psychological counseling, mental health treatment, or any combination of these and other interventions. (9) "Evidence-based practices" refers to supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals under probation, parole, or post release supervision. (b) The provisions of this act are not intended to alleviate state prison overcrowding. Penal Code §3450 [SB 678 – Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009] 3450. (a) This act shall be known and may be cited as the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 2011. (b) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) The Legislature reaffirms its commitment to reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. (2) Despite the dramatic increase in corrections spending over the past two decades, national reincarceration rates for people released from prison remain unchanged or have worsened. National data show that about 40 percent of released individuals are reincarcerated within three years. In California, the recidivism rate for persons who have served time in prison is even greater than the national average. (3) Criminal justice policies that rely on the reincarceration of parolees for technical violations do not result in improved public safety. (4) California must reinvest its criminal justice resources to support community corrections programs and evidence-based practices that will achieve improved public safety returns on this state's substantial investment in its criminal justice system. (5) Realigning the postrelease supervision of certain felons reentering the community after serving a prison term to local community corrections programs, which are strengthened through community-based punishment, evidence-based practices, and improved supervision strategies, will improve public safety outcomes among adult felon parolees and will facilitate their successful reintegration back into society. (6) Community corrections programs require a partnership between local public safety entities and the county to provide and expand the use of community-based punishment for offenders paroled from state prison. Each county's local Community Corrections Partnership, as established in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 1230, should play a critical role in developing programs and ensuring appropriate outcomes for persons subject to postrelease community supervision. (7) Fiscal policy and correctional practices should align to promote a justice reinvestment strategy that fits each county. "Justice reinvestment" is a data-driven approach to reduce corrections and related criminal justice spending and reinvest savings in strategies designed to increase public safety. The purpose of justice reinvestment is to manage and allocate criminal

23

Attachment #4

justice populations more cost effectively, generating savings that can be reinvested in evidence-based strategies that increase public safety while holding offenders accountable. (8) "Community-based punishment" means evidence-based correctional sanctions and programming encompassing a range of custodial and noncustodial responses to criminal or noncompliant offender activity. Intermediate sanctions may be provided by local public safety entities directly or through public or private correctional service providers and include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Short-term "flash" incarceration in jail for a period of not more than 10 days. (B) Intensive community supervision. (C) Home detention with electronic monitoring or GPS monitoring. (D) Mandatory community service. (E) Restorative justice programs, such as mandatory victim restitution and victim-offender reconciliation. (F) Work, training, or education in a furlough program pursuant to Section 1208. (G) Work, in lieu of confinement, in a work release program pursuant to Section 4024.2. (H) Day reporting. (I) Mandatory residential or nonresidential substance abuse treatment programs. (J) Mandatory random drug testing. (K) Mother-infant care programs. (L) Community-based residential programs offering structure, supervision, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, literacy programming, employment counseling, psychological counseling, mental health treatment, or any combination of these and other interventions. (9) "Evidence-based practices" refers to supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices demonstrated by scientific research to reduce recidivism among individuals under probation, parole, or postrelease supervision.

24

Attachment #5 Background materials for county administrators and executives about

Allocating AB 109 Realignment Funds Among Counties 1020 11th Street, Sacramento, California — January 16, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 1. Purposes 2. Past and Present: Temporary Allocation — Process and Result 3. Future: Growth and a Permanent Allocation 4. Issues and Alternatives 1. Purposes

The three purposes of this meeting and these background materials are:

- To explain the formulas that allocate AB 109 criminal justice realignment funds for the first three years (2011-12 through 2013-14);

- To explain the process and reasoning used to determine those formulas and to describe the process in place to determine a formula for future growth and a permanent allocation formula; and

- To discuss concerns about and alternatives to the current allocation formula.

2. Past and Present: Temporary Allocation — Process and Result

Governor Brown’s Administration requested — and CSAC agreed — that counties allocate criminal justice realignment funds among themselves. To this end, CSAC asked CAOAC to develop an AB 109 allocation formula. CAOAC created a Realignment Allocation Committee in 2011 composed of nine members, all CAOs. Three each came from urban, suburban, and rural counties.

At the outset of its work in the spring of 2011, the committee decided on a few principles to guide their work. First, the committee determined that the formula should be simple, so that it would be transparent and easy to understand. Second, because the policy is so far-reaching and the committee’s time to work was so short, and also because so much information was as yet unknown, they decided the formula should be temporary and only apply to the first nine months of the operation of AB 109 (October 2011 through June 2012). The formulas for subsequent years would be determined later, informed by any additional information and programmatic experience.

In the face of limited data and experience, the committee used what information it had: population, estimated workload, and success in implementing SB 678. They soon found that formulas that relied strictly on caseload or on population produced widely divergent results with no ready explanation as to why; some hybrid would be needed. The committee also wanted to incentivize a community corrections model, but without ignoring actual workload.

25

2

This chart shows the difference between Year 1 allocations based strictly on population and estimated workload. The bar height represents greater percentage variation from one factor to the other; deeper green means greater dollar variation. Contra Costa County would have received nearly 2.5 times more money under one single-factor allocation than the other, while Trinity County would receive almost the same amount of money under either. Los Angeles County is in the bottom quarter of the scale, but because of their size would still see a $17 million difference.

The maps below show estimated workload per 100,000 adults (left) and each county’s share of the estimated workload statewide (right). The ticks in the legend mark the statewide median. On both, pale yellow indicates nearness to the median, green a higher number, orange lower. Note that Los Angeles’ share of ADP is 32%, well beyond the right-side scale’s maximum.

26

3

The final formula for 2011-12 attempted to balance all of these factors. It gave the most weight (60 percent) to estimated workload (ADP), which was based on each county’s recent history of sending offenders to prison. However, it balanced that with some weight on adult population (30 percent), recognizing that recent history is not necessarily determinate of the near future. The formula also included as a small factor (10 percent) apparent success in steering probationers away from prison, as measured by SB 678 performance. The committee made individual adjustments for the largest and smallest counties.

The explanation above equates “estimated workload” with “ADP,” which stands for Average Daily Population. This was the most acceptable workload data available to the allocation committee. The number is an estimate based on relatively recent history (five years) of state prison and parole usage. It is not a count of the number of offenders each county can expect to serve, but the average number of offenders a county can expect to have on any given day. A county with a large number of prisoners who each have short sentences might have the same ADP as a county with a smaller number of prisoners who each have longer sentences.

Counties with high variation on either side would see reason to be unhappy with the result. Those with a historically low reliance on the state prison system wanted less weight given to that factor, while those with high caseloads thought other non-ADP factors were over-emphasized.

Funding available for criminal justice realignment more than doubled from the nine-month allocation of Year 1 ($354.3 million) to Year 2 ($842.9 million), and is estimated to grow another 18.5 percent from Year 2 to Year 3 ($998.9 million). This growth gave the allocation committee leeway to deal with perceived inequities created by the Year 1 formula.

However, at the time the committee was making decisions about formulas for Years 2 and 3, they had no additional data or programmatic experience. The committee discussed using a few alternative data points, such as crime rates, poverty rates, and court dispositions, but in the end tabled those ideas due to the committee’s stated principle of simplicity and because dramatic changes to the formula seemed likely to create new perceived inequities.

Because of the continuing limitations of data and experience, the allocation committee decided to delay setting a permanent allocation formula. They wanted to establish a minimum funding base and create a bridge to a final allocation methodology, and so decided to create a new formula for Years 2 and 3 based on familiar data elements.

The committee discussed dozens of alternatives over the course of six months, sometimes by conference call and sometimes in person, meeting at least biweekly for the first several months of 2012.

The committee ultimately decided on a formula whereby each county could rely on receiving at least double their Year 1 allocation. Beyond that, each county received a share of the

27

4

total funding based on either its adult population (ages 18 to 64), adjusted ADP, or the Year 1 formula (60/30/10) with updated data, which ever was most beneficial. Los Angeles got the same share they received in Year 1. Each county’s share of the statewide allocation remains constant from Year 2 to Year 3, giving every county the benefit of increased fund levels referenced above.

The results of that allocation method are included in this packet as Attachment 2.

The chart below illustrates how the aggregate funding for all three years strikes a balance between workload and overall population. Counties that do poorly by one measure do well by the other. As before, the tick marks indicate the statewide median, pale yellow nearness to the medium, dark green a higher amount, and orange lower. Note that, because Alpine County is such an extreme outlier, the maximum on both scales is reduced to better show variation among other counties.

3. Future: Growth and a Permanent Allocation

Growth of sales tax revenue in the fall of 2013 gives the allocation committee additional leeway to deal with new perceived inequities of the allocation method for Years 2 and 3, though within the statutory limitations described below.

28

5

Realigned law enforcement programs will receive 35 percent of the growth of realignment sales taxes, with the other 65 percent going to realigned health and human service programs. Of the 35 percent, 75 percent will go to AB 109. In other words, 26.25 percent of growth in realignment sales tax revenue directly benefits AB 109 services.

Statute gives some direction as to how the AB 109 portion of realignment growth is to be allocated. It requires a guaranteed minimum allocation for each county, including special minimum allocations for small counties. It requires adjustments for ADP (workload) variations from estimated levels and for other factors affecting realignment implementation.

The Department of Finance has discretion over growth, and statute directs them to consider a county’s “commitment to continuing, expanding, or initiating community corrections practices…most cost effectively through the use of evidence-based practices…including…the use of offender risk and needs assessment tools, criminogenic-based interventions, substance abuse and mental health treatment,…and sanctions other than traditional jail incarceration alone.” The complete statutory language is included in this packet as Attachment 3.

The allocation committee will recommend growth allocation for 2012-13 to the Department of Finance by spring 2013.

More important than next year’s growth, however, the allocation committee must still determine a permanent allocation formula. Counties are reminded that the base for AB 109 is not set until implementation is fully realized in 2015-16 (Year 5).

The allocation committee has formed a subcommittee called the Data Advisory Committee. This subcommittee has an extremely narrow focus: to give the allocation committee ideas as to which data sets it might find useful as it creates a permanent allocation formula, along with their reasoning for suggesting those data sets. The purpose of the subcommittee is to get limited input from a wider array of people without relinquishing control of the permanent allocation formula.

After the data advisory committee reports to the allocation committee, the allocation committee will resume debate and discussion of what factors should be used in the permanent formula, and with what weight.

4. Issues and Alternatives

The allocation committee is charged with the complex task of developing a system that recognizes the considerable diversity of the state. That diversity ensures that no single approach will work. Thus, any result of the committee’s work will be unfair by some measure or another.

One of the committees difficulties is deciding just how broadly to think in making their determination. If the formula will in fact be permanent, the committee cannot simply rely on a

29

6

few recent years of data. Future demographics will have to be considered in some way, but reliance on future data sets is likely to incentivize one set of behavior or another.

If the formula awards funds based primarily on workload, then counties are incentivized to seek many long terms of incarceration, precisely the opposite of realignment’s intent, which is to reduce recidivism. However, ignoring workload results in a system that imposes fiscal punishment based on situations largely out of a county’s control.

What if the formula was based on the entire criminal justice population, or even just on higher level of violent crime? This approach could award more funds to jurisdictions that have higher crime without direct relationship to the AB 109 realigned populations. Yet, using these data elements in conjunction with others may allow the committee to achieve a formula that is appropriate and equitable when combined with other elements.

It is the CAOAC’s hope that the meeting of January 16 will produce a thoughtful and healthy discussion to ensure counties understand the rationale and the difficulty of formulating a methodology for dividing up resources that support new offender populations. The allocation process would benefit greatly from the county administrators discussing their thoughts about a long-term funding formula.

30

Attachment #6

Long-term Allocation Framework (11-21-2013) Realignment Allocation Committee with input from CAOAC

The Realignment Allocation Committee has begun its works to develop a recommended approach for the long-term AB 109 allocation, effective beginning in 2014-15. The committee will determine:

• The specific elements to be included and the weighting of such factors; • Whether and how those factors may change within the period in which the formula is in effect; • The duration of the proposed allocation formula; • How to manage the step down in programmatic funding in 2014-15 tied to the natural drop-off

in the locally supervised population; • The short- and long-term role of growth during the period in which the formula is in effect; and • How to appropriately balance the workload associated with the implementation of public safety

realignment, other factors affecting counties’ efforts, and appropriate incentives to encourage use of programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism and improve offender outcomes.

Principles guiding the committee’s work:

1- Formula driven by data a. Reliable b. Consistent c. Standardized d. Available on a statewide basis e. Based upon agreed-upon data definitions f. Statistically relevant driving factors

2- Funding allocations a. Protect current funding levels to the greatest extent possible / adjust over time to avoid

disproportional impacts b. Predictable and stable c. Defined by legislative intent d. Fair and equitable distribution e. One size does not fit all / need to recognize counties’ different circumstances f. Opportunity to revisit g. Mechanism to adjust for changing conditions (above baseline)

3- Incentives a. Encourage use of defined evidence-based practices and achieved results over time b. Reward performance and efforts to improve justice system outcomes, such as reduced

recidivism c. Encourage regionalized services that result in greater efficiencies and cost savings

4- Other elements a. Maximize flexibility and local control b. Maximize communication between Department of Finance, RAC, and CAOs c. Build services, program and facility capacity, including jails

31

Attachment #7

Reference Description LinkState Controller's Office Lists of local apportionments for 1991 and 2011 Realignment. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_local_apportionments.html

2011 Realignment


2011 Protective Services RealignmentProvides monthly apportionment of 2011 Protective Services Realignment to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_protectiveservices.html

2011 Behavioral Health RealignmentProvides monthly apportionment of 2011 Behavioral Health Realignment to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_behavioralhealth.html

2011 Women and Children's Residential Treatment Realignment

Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Women and Children's Residential Treatment Realignment to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month.

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_womenandchildrenresidemtialtreatment.html


Community Corrections (Local Community Corrections)

Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Community Corrections Subaccount (Local Community Corrections) to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_local_community.html

District Attorney and Public DefenderProvides monthly apportionment of 2011 District Attorney and Public Defender to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_daandpubdef.html


Booking and Processing Fees Apportionment Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Booking and Processing Fees Apportionment to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_booking.html

Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program and Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Funds

Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program and Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Funds to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payrments_cops.html

Rural and Small County Law Enforcement Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Rural and Small County Law Enforcement to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_rural.html

California Emergency Management Agency Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 California Emergency Management Agency to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_ca_emerg_man.html

Juvenile Probation Activities Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Juvenile Probation Activities to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_juv_prob.html

Juvenile Probation Camp Funding Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Juvenile Probation Camp Funding to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month.

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_juvenileprobationcampfunding.html


Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account

Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_youth.html

Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account Provides monthly apportionment of 2011 Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_youth_reentry.html

Trial Court Security SubaccountProvides monthly apportionment of 2011 Trial Court Security Subaccount to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_trialcourtsecurity.html


Protective Services Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation.http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_protectiveservicesgrowth.html

Behavioral Health Services Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation. TBD

Mental Health Subaccount Provides growth allocation. TBD

Trial Court Security Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation.http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_trialcourtsecuritygrowth.html

Community Corrections Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation.

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_local_communitygrowth.html

District Attorney and Public Defender Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_local_dapdgsa.html

Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account Provides growth allocation. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_juvenilejusticegrowth.html

Government Code Section 30025-30029.12 Government Code for 2011 Realignment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=30001-31000&file=30025-30029.12

2011 Realignment Trailer Bill - SB 1020 Trailer bill provides an overall financing structure of 2011 Realignment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1020&sess=PREV&house=B&author=committee_on_budget_and_fiscal_review


Department of Finance LetterLetter regarding the Behavioral Health Subaccount of the Support Services Account of the 2011 Realignment.

http://www.cmhda.org/go/Portals/0/CMHDA%20Files/Breaking%20News/1209_September/DOF_Letter_Re_Beh_Health_Subaccount_(9-18-12).pdf

Behavioral Health Subaccount Percent Allocation Percent allocation based on FY 2011-12 Substance Abuse Subaccount Allocations .

http://www.cmhda.org/go/Portals/0/CMHDA%20Files/Breaking%20News/1209_September/Behavorial_Health_Subaccount_Percent_Allocations_2012-13_(9-18-12).xlsx

EPSDT Allocation EPSDT allocation calculation schedule.

http://www.cmhda.org/go/portals/0/cmhda%20files/breaking%20news/1209_september/FY2012-13_bh_subaccount_epsdt_allocation_schedule_(9-18-12).xlsx

EPSDT Allocation NarrativeDocument outlining assumptions and methodology used in the calculation of the EPSDT allocation.

http://www.cmhda.org/go/portals/0/cmhda%20files/breaking%20news/1209_september/bh_subaccount_epsdt_allocation_narrative_(9-18-12).pdf

MHSD Information Notice No. 12-08 All County Letter regarding the Local Behavioral Health Subaccount allocations.http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/MHCCY/InfoNotice12-08.pdf

Realignment Resource List

32

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_local_apportionments.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_protectiveservices.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_behavioralhealth.html



http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_local_community.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_daandpubdef.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_booking.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payrments_cops.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_rural.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_ca_emerg_man.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_juv_prob.html



http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_youth.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_youth_reentry.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_trialcourtsecurity.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_trialcourtsecuritygrowth.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_trialcourtsecuritygrowth.html



http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_local_dapdgsa.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_juvenilejusticegrowth.html







http://www.cmhda.org/go/Portals/0/CMHDA Files/Breaking News/1209_September/DOF_Letter_Re_Beh_Health_Subaccount_(9-18-12).pdf



http://www.cmhda.org/go/Portals/0/CMHDA Files/Breaking News/1209_September/Behavorial_Health_Subaccount_Percent_Allocations_2012-13_(9-18-12).xlsx



http://www.cmhda.org/go/portals/0/cmhda files/breaking news/1209_september/FY2012-13_bh_subaccount_epsdt_allocation_schedule_(9-18-12).xlsx



http://www.cmhda.org/go/portals/0/cmhda files/breaking news/1209_september/bh_subaccount_epsdt_allocation_narrative_(9-18-12).pdf



http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/MHCCY/InfoNotice12-08.pdf

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/MHCCY/InfoNotice12-08.pdf

Attachment #7

Reference Description Link

Realignment Resource List

County Fiscal Letter 12/13-16 Protective Services Subaccount percentage calculation by county.http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/cfl/2012-13/12_13-16.pdf

County Fiscal Letter 11/12-18Health and Human Services Account percentage calculation for FY 2011-12 by county.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/cfl/2011-12/11-12_18.pdf

LAO Report on 2011 Realignment Report published in May 2012 evaluating 2011 Realignment.http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/socservices/2012/Evaluating_Realignment_Superstructure_5_25_12.pdf

1991 Realignment

1991 RealignmentProvides monthly apportionment of 1991 Realignment to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_realign.html

1991 Realignment Statutes California Welfare and Institution Codes for 1991 Realignment

WIC Section 17600 - 17600.20 Funding Allocations

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=17001-18000&file=17600-17600.20

WIC Section 17601 - 17601.25 Mental Health Allocations


WIC Section 17602 - 17602.1 Social Services Allocations


WIC Section 17603 - 17603.05 Health Allocations


WIC Section 17604 - 17604.05 Vehicle License Fee Allocations


WIC Section 17605 - 17605.10 Growth Account Allocations--Deposits


WIC Section 17606 - 17606.20 Allocation of Funds from the Sales Tax Growth Account

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=17001-18000&file=17606.05-17606.20

WIC Section 17608.05 - 17608.15 County Matching Fund Requirements


WIC Section 17609 - 17609.10 Expenditure Limitations and Reports


LAO Report on 1991 Realignment Report published in Feb 2001 evaluating 1991 Realignment. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=755

CWDA 1991 Realignment Growth Desk guide Tool to assist counties in the realignment caseload growth reconciliation process. http://www.cwda.org/tools/fiscal.php

Miscellaneous (Sales Tax and VLF info)

AB 85

1991 Realignment/CalWORKs trailer bill. This bill also implements a mechanism for counties to share savings, which result from implementation of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the state.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0051-0100/ab_85_bill_20130627_chaptered.pdf

AB 104 Bill with clean-up language for AB 85.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB104&search_keywords=

Prop 172Provides monthly apportionment of Prop 172 (Half Percent Sales Tax for Public Safety) to counties, usually posts around 25th or 27th of the month. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_pubsafe.html

Monthly Statements of General Fund Cash Receipts and Disbursements

Statement reflecting California's General Fund cash position and compares actual receipts and disbursements for the current fiscal year to cash flow estimates prepared by Department of Finance during the budget process. http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_state_cash.html

CSAC Link to training materials.http://www.csac.counties.org/post/realignment-301-where-funds-flow

CSAC Link to training materials. http://www.csac.counties.org/knowledge-center

33

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/cfl/2012-13/12_13-16.pdf

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersnotices/entres/getinfo/cfl/2012-13/12_13-16.pdf



http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/socservices/2012/Evaluating_Realignment_Superstructure_5_25_12.pdf

http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/socservices/2012/Evaluating_Realignment_Superstructure_5_25_12.pdf

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_realign.html




























http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=755

http://www.cwda.org/tools/fiscal.php



http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB104&search_keywords=

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB104&search_keywords=

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_payments_pubsafe.html

http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_state_cash.html

http://www.csac.counties.org/post/realignment-301-where-funds-flow

http://www.csac.counties.org/post/realignment-301-where-funds-flow

http://www.csac.counties.org/knowledge-center

Attachment #8Local Revenue Fund 2011AccountsSubaccountsSpecial Accounts

Base/CapDescription

FY 2013-14Distribution


(if different than previous year)


(if different than previous year)

GrowthDescription

Growth Distribution to Counties

Mental Health

Support Services

Law Enforcement Services

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesBooking and Processing Fees Apportionment

Allocation (dollar figure) specified in legislation

G.C. 29552 (d) - - Not applicable Not applicable

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesCitizens' Option For Public Safety (COPS)

Allocation (dollar figure) calculated by DOF

G.C. 30061 (g) - - Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.05 (f)(2)

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesMulti-Agency Juvenile Justice Funds

Allocation (dollar figure) calculated by DOF

G.C. 30061 (g) - - Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.05 (f)(3)

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesRural and Small County Law Enforcement

Allocation (county percents) specified in legislation

G.C. 30070 (a) - - Not applicable Not applicable

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesCalifornia Emergency Management Agency


P.C. 13821 (c) - - Not applicable Not applicable

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesJuvenile Probation Activities


W.I.C. 18220 (c) - - Allocation based on same percentages

G.C. 30029.05 (f)(1)

Enhancing Law Enforcement ActivitiesJuvenile Probation Camp Funding

Allocation varies by month(# of occupied beds)

W.I.C. 18220.1 (c) - - Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.05 (f)(4)

Trial Court Security Allocation (county percents) specified in legislation

G.C. 30029.05 (b) - - Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.07 (a)(2)

Community Corrections Allocation (county percents) specified in legislation

***CHANGES in 14/15***

G.C. 30029.05 (c)(1) G.C. 30029.05 (c)(2) G.C. 30029.05 (c)(2) Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.07 (e)

District Attorney and Public Defender G.C. 30029.05 (d)(1) G.C. 30029.05 (d)(2) G.C. 30029.05 (d)(2) Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.07 (a)(2)

Juvenile JusticeYouthful Offfender Block Grant Allocation (dollar figure)

calculated by DOFW.I.C. 1954.1 - - Allocation based on schedule

provided by DOFG.C. 30029.07 (a)(2)

Juvenile Reentry Grant Allocation (dollar figure) calculated by DOF

W.I.C. 1983 - - Allocation based on schedule provided by DOF

G.C. 30029.07 (a)(2)

Local Innovation Not applicable - - - Ten percent of Trial Court Security GSA, Community Corrections GSA, District

Attorney and Public Defender GSA, and Juvenile Justice GSA

G.C. 30029.07 (b)


***CHANGES in 14/15***

34

Attachment #9

Page 1 of 13 May 16, 2012 California State Association of Counties

Section Purpose CREATING THE FUNDS Govt Code §30025 pp. 1-12

Creates the funds at the state level for 2012-13 and beyond. As of September 30, 2012, abolishes the accounts and subaccounts created in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 at the state level in 2011-12, except the Mental Health Account, the Undistributed Account and the Reserve Account. As of December 31, 2012 the Undistributed Account and the Reserve Account are abolished. Local Revenue Fund 2011 with the following permanent structure for account, subaccounts and special accounts: Support Services Account Protective Services Subaccount Behavioral Health Subaccount County Intervention Support Services Subaccount Law Enforcement Services Account Trial Court Security Subaccount Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Special Growth Account (i.e., local public safety subventions) Community Corrections Subaccount DA/PD Subaccount Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account

Sales and Use Tax Growth Account Support Services Growth Subaccount

Protective Services Growth Special Account Behavioral Health Growth Special Account

Law Enforcement Services Growth Subaccount Trial Court Security Growth Special Account Community Corrections Growth Special Account DA/PD Growth Special Account Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account

35

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Provides for the transfer of funds from 2011-12 accounts and subaccounts to the permanent accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts on September 15, 2012. Old accounts are deleted on September 30, 2012. Similarly, changes the account structure at the local level. The County Local Revenue Fund 2011 includes the following: Support Services Account Protective Services Subaccount Behavioral Health Subaccount Support Services Reserve Subaccount (local option) Law Enforcement Services Account Trial Court Security Subaccount Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount Community Corrections Subaccount DA/PD Subaccount Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account

Innovation Subaccount (funds deposited in 2015-16)

Transferability. Includes transfer (called reallocation) provisions similar to 1991 between the Protective Services and Behavioral Health Subaccounts [paragraphs (f)(1)(D)(i-v). The language mirrors Welfare & Institutions Code § 17600.20. Clarifies the reallocation is for one fiscal year and is not a permanent funding source. Local Reserve. Board of Supervisors may optionally create a Support Services Reserve Subaccount. The Reserve Subaccount is capped at 5% of the total funds allocated to the Protective Services and Behavioral Health Subaccounts in a given fiscal year. Funds are to be used only for programs funded by the two subaccounts. Requires documentation to be submitted to the Controller annually. [paragraphs (f)(1)(F)(i-ii)]. Provides for the transfer of funds from 2011-12 county accounts and subaccounts to the permanent accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts on September 15, 2012.

36

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Creates a Local Innovation Subaccount in the local Law Enforcement Services Account. Boards of Supervisors has the authority to spend funds in the Local Innovation Subaccount as they would funds in any of the other law enforcement subaccounts, with the exception of the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Adds Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, including Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) and mental health managed care, to the programs within the Behavioral Health Subaccount. Clarifies that the existing 10% county match for EPSDT growth is not an eligible expense from the Behavioral Health Subaccount. Provides all funds from the state Reserve Account be disbursed by December 1, 2012. Provides all funds from the Undistributed Account be disbursed by December 1, 2012.

Govt Code § 30026 p. 12

Clarifies that the newly created Community Corrections Subaccount and the Community Corrections Growth Special Account shall be used to fund AB 109.

MANDATES, PROTECTIONS, ETC. Govt Code § 30726.5 pp. 12-17

This section generally includes a number of the provisions from the constitutional amendment negotiated with the Brown Administration. There is some additional language, as well.

(a) Identical to constitutional amendment (b) New language. The Administration is trying to clarify that if anything in 2011 Realignment is declared a mandate

that the funds provided for are intended to cover the costs of the mandate. The subparagraphs are intended to direct counties to use funds from the accounts and subaccounts to pay for mandates unless the Subaccount funding is insufficient.

(c) Identical to constitutional amendment (d) Similar to constitutional amendment. Adds cross-reference back to (b). (e) Similar to constitutional amendment. Adds cross-reference back to (b). (f) New language. Requires that if a Board of Supervisors adopts significant cuts to optional or discretionary

programs, then they shall do so in a noticed public meeting. Defines significant cuts as 10% in one year or 25% over three years. This section applies to behavioral health programs or adult protective services. For the other optional or discretionary services funded from the Protective Services Subaccount, counties shall follow the public notification articulated in statute [in the DSS realignment TBL].

(g) This section creates the shares of cost for the HHS programs without enactment of the constitutional amendment. Also clarifies that counties are to use 2011 Realignment funds before using county General Fund on realigned programs if they are determined to be state mandates.

37

Attachment #9


Section Purpose (h) Creates the shares of costs for the HHS programs if the constitutional amendment is enacted. (i) Provides direction to the Controller about posting revenues and disbursements related to 2011 Realignment. (j) Clarifies that 2011 Realignment does not affect rights provided by federal entitlement programs. 2011

Realignment does not place additional restrictions on eligibility, coverage or access to services and care for any federal or state entitlement.

(k) Continues counties’ existing 10% match on EPSDT growth and clarifies that the match shall come from a funding source other than the Local Revenue Fund 2011.

(l) Provides that if the constitutional amendment passes, all subdivisions except (f), (h) and (i) are eliminated. ALLOCATING FUNDS TO THE STATE ACCOUNTS Govt Code §30027 pp. 17-18

Allocates funds to the appropriate state accounts and subaccounts in 2011-12 and clarifies that the fiscal year includes the cash received in July and August 2012.

Govt Code §30027.5 pp. 18-21

Provides for the allocation of funds for the 2012-13 fiscal year to state accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts. Allocates $93,379,252 in sales tax to the Mental Health Account of the Local Revenue Fund 2011. Allocates $489.9 million in VLF to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Allocates sales tax to the Support Services (64.1975% or $2.604 billion) and Law Enforcement Services Accounts

(35.8025% or $1.452 billion). If revenues come in below projections, the funds are disbursed proportionally between the Support Services and

Law Enforcement Services Accounts. If revenues come in above the base amount for each account, the funds are deposited into the Sales and Use Tax

Growth Account. If there are not sufficient VLF revenues to provide $489.9 million to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities

Subaccount, then sales tax revenues from the Local Revenue Fund are used to make up the difference. Allocates funds to the Law Enforcement Services Account and its corresponding Subaccounts and Special Accounts.

34.1721% up to $496,429,000 to Trial Court Security Subaccount 58.0217% up to $842,900,000 to Community Corrections Subaccount 1.0050% up to $14.6 million to the DA/PD Subaccount 6.8012% up to $98,804,000 to Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Allocates funds to the Support Services Account and its subaccounts. 37.0264% up to $964,500,000 to the Behavioral Health Subaccount 62.9736% up to $1,640,400,000 to the Protective Services Subaccount

Govt Code §30027.6 pp. 21-23

Provides for the allocation of funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year to state accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts.

38

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Requires DOF to submit a schedule to the Controller that includes prior year base and growth calculations and

revised allocations. Allocates $93,379,252 in sales tax to the Mental Health Account of the Local Revenue Fund 2011. Allocates $489.9 million in VLF to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Allocates sales tax to the Support Services and Law Enforcement Services Accounts.

Support Services = amounts allocated in the prior FY + $20.368 million + total support services growth Law Enforcement = amount allocated in the prior FY + $158.5 million + Trial Court Security and Juvenile

Justice Growth Special Accounts in 2012-13 If revenues come in below projections, the funds are disbursed proportionally between the Support Services and




30.8015% up to totals received in 2012-13 to Trial Court Security Subaccount 61.9960% up to $998.9 million to Community Corrections Subaccount 1.0613% up to $17.1 million to DA/PD Subaccount 6.1322% up to totals received in 2012-13 to Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Allocates funds to the Support Services Account and its subaccounts. 36.7391% up to total amount received in 2012-13 for Behavioral Health Subaccount 63.2609% up to the total amount received in 2012-13 plus $20.368 million

Govt Code §30027.7 pp. 24-26

Provides for the allocation of funds for the 2014-15 fiscal year to state accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts. Requires DOF to submit a schedule to the Controller that includes prior year base and growth calculations and

revised allocations. Allocates $93,379,252 in sales tax to the Mental Health Account of the Local Revenue Fund 2011. Allocates $489.9 million in VLF to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Allocates sales tax to the Support Services and Law Enforcement Services Accounts.

Support Services = amounts allocated in the prior FY + $15.333 million + total support services growth Law Enforcement = amount allocated in the prior FY + $66.1 million + Trial Court Security and Juvenile

Justice Growth Special Accounts in 2012-13 If revenues come in below projections, the funds are disbursed proportionally between the Support Services and

39

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Law Enforcement Services Accounts.

If revenues come in above the base amount for each account, the funds are deposited into the Sales and Use Tax Growth Account.

If there are not sufficient VLF revenues to provide $489.9 million to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount, then sales tax revenues from the Local Revenue Fund are used to make up the difference.

Allocates funds to the Law Enforcement Services Account and its corresponding Subaccounts and Special Accounts. 32.1286% up to totals received in 2013-14 to Trial Court Security Subaccount 60.4543% up to $934.1 million to Community Corrections Subaccount 1.0226% up to $15.8 million to DA/PD Subaccount 6.3945% up to totals received in 2013-14 to Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Allocates funds to the Support Services Account and its subaccounts. 36.5258% up to total amount received in 2013-14 for Behavioral Health Subaccount 63.4742% up to the total amount received in 2013-14 plus $15.333 million

Govt Code §30027.8 pp. 26-29

Provides for the allocation of funds for the 2015-16 fiscal year and every fiscal year after to state accounts, subaccounts, and special accounts. Requires DOF to submit a schedule to the Controller that includes prior year base and growth calculations and

revised allocations. Allocates $93,379,252 in sales tax to the Mental Health Account of the Local Revenue Fund (1991 Realignment). Allocates $489.9 million in VLF to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Allocates sales tax to the Support Services and Law Enforcement Services Accounts.

Support Services = amounts allocated in the prior FY plus Support Services Growth Subaccount deposits Law Enforcement Services = amounts allocated in the prior FY plus Law Enforcement Services Growth

Subaccount deposits If revenues come in below projections, the funds are disbursed proportionally between the Support Services and




40

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Totals received in the prior year to Trial Court Security Subaccount and Growth Special Account Totals received in the prior year to Community Corrections Subaccount and Growth Special Account Totals received in the prior year to DA/PD Subaccount and Growth Special Account Totals received in the prior year to Juvenile Justice Subaccount and Growth Special Account

If there are insufficient funds, Controller allocates funding based on the proportional share each subaccount received in the previous fiscal year.

Allocates funds to the Support Services Account and its subaccounts. Total received in the Behavioral Health Subaccount and Growth Special Account in the prior fiscal year Total received in the Protective Services Subaccount and Growth Special Account in the prior fiscal year

If there are insufficient funds, Controller allocates funding based on the proportional share each subaccount received in the previous fiscal year.

Govt Code §30027.9 pp. 29-34

Growth Allocations. 2012-13 For 2012-13, allocations from the Sales and Use Tax Growth Account: 65% to the Support Services growth Subaccount and 35% to the Law Enforcement Services Subaccount. 2013-14 For 2013-14, first allocate Sales and Use Tax Growth funds to the Support Services Account and the Law Enforcement Services Account the “amounts necessary to provide full base funding or the appropriate level of funding as described in this act.” If there are insufficient funds to fully fund the subaccounts, distribute on the same proportion as the two accounts received from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in 2013-14. Once a prior year base shortfall is addressed, allocate 65% to the Support Services growth Subaccount and 35% to the Law Enforcement Services Subaccount. Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Law Enforcement Services Account as: The greater of the amounts that either the predecessor of the Trial Court Subaccount received in 2011-2 OR the

total amount the Trial Court Subaccount and its Growth Special Accounts received in 2012-13, plus The greater of the amounts that either the predecessor of the Juvenile Justice Subaccount received in 2011-2 OR

the total amount the Juvenile Justice Subaccount and its Growth Special Accounts received in 2012-13, plus The maximum amount permitted to be allocated to the Community Corrections Subaccount, plus The maximum amount permitted to be allocated to the DA/PD Subaccount.

41

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Support Services Account as: The maximum amount permitted to be allocated to the Behavioral Health Subaccount, plus The maximum amount permitted to be allocated to the Protective Services Subaccount. 2014-15 For 2014-15, first allocate Sales and Use Tax Growth funds to the Support Services Account and the Law Enforcement Services Account the “amounts necessary to provide full base funding or the appropriate level of funding as described in this act.” If there are insufficient funds to fully fund the subaccounts, distribute on the same proportion as the two accounts received from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in 2014-15. Once a prior year base shortfall is addressed, allocate 65% to the Support Services growth Subaccount and 35% to the Law Enforcement Services Subaccount. Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Law Enforcement Services Account as: The greater of the amounts that either the Trial Court Subaccount and its growth special account received in a single

fiscal year since 2012-13 OR the amount applicable predecessor account received in 2011-12, plus The greater of the amounts that either the Juvenile Justice Subaccount and its growth special account received in a

single fiscal year since 2012-13 OR the amount applicable predecessor account received in 2011-12, plus The greatest amount received by the Community Corrections Subaccount in a single year since 2012-13, plus The greatest amount received by the DA/PD Subaccount in a single year since 2012-13. Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Support Services Account as: The greater of either the maximum amount that could be allocated OR the largest amounts actually received by to

the Behavioral Health Subaccount and its special growth account in a single year since 2012-13, plus The greater of either the maximum amount that could be allocated OR the that should have been allocated to the

Protective Services Subaccount. 2015-16 For 2015-16 and beyond, first allocate Sales and Use Tax Growth funds to the Support Services Account and the Law Enforcement Services Account the “amounts necessary to provide full base funding as described in this act.” If there are insufficient funds to fully fund the subaccounts, distribute on the same proportion as the two accounts received from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in the fiscal year at issue. Once a prior year base shortfall is addressed, allocate 65% to the Support Services growth Subaccount and 35% to the Law Enforcement Services Subaccount.

42

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Law Enforcement Services Account as: The greater of the amounts that either the Trial Court Subaccount and its growth special account received in a single

fiscal year since 2012-13 OR the amount applicable predecessor account received in 2011-12, plus The greater of the amounts that either the Juvenile Justice Subaccount and its growth special account received in a

single fiscal year since 2012-13 OR the amount applicable predecessor account received in 2011-12, plus The greatest amount received by the Community Corrections Subaccount and its growth special account received in

a single fiscal year since 2014-15 OR the highest amount he Subaccount or its applicable predecessor received since 2012-13, plus

The greatest amount received by the DA/PD Subaccount and its growth special account received in a single fiscal year since 2014-15 OR the highest amount he Subaccount or its applicable predecessor received since 2012-13.

Defines the “amount necessary to provide the appropriate level of funding” for the Support Services Account as: The greater of either the maximum amount that could be allocated OR the largest amounts received by the

Behavioral Health Subaccount and its special growth account in a single year since 2012-13, plus The greatest of the following 3 options: (1) maximum amount that could be allocated, (2) amount that should have

been allocated, or (3) highest amount received by the Protective Services Account and its growth special account in a single year since 2012-13.

Law Enforcement Growth Allocations 2012-13 10% to Trial Court Security Growth Special Account 5% to DA/PD Growth Special Account 10% to Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account 75% to Community Corrections Growth Special Account Beginning in 2013-14, for Trial Court Security and the Juvenile Justice Account base + growth = new base. The DA/PD and Community Corrections Growth subaccounts, base + growth = new base starting in 2015-16. Support Services Growth Allocations 2012-13 From the Support Services Growth Subaccount allocate: 5% to the Mental Health Subaccount (1991)

43

Attachment #9


Section Purpose 40% for child welfare services to the Protective Services Growth Special Account 42.03% to the Protective Services Growth Special Account 12.97% to the Behavioral Health Growth Special Account 2013-14 Designates starting 40 percent of Supportive Services Growth is dedicated to child welfare services until a full $200 million is reached. From the Support Services Growth Subaccount allocate: 5% to the Mental Health Subaccount (1991) 40% for child welfare services to the Protective Services Growth Special Account 21.81% to the Protective Services Growth Special Account 33.19% to the Behavioral Health Growth Special Account Defines how growth is counted for determining base. DOF certifies that $200 million has been allocated for child welfare services and notifies the Controller. Once the $200 million is paid to child welfare services, allocate from the Support Services Growth Subaccount as follows: 5% to the Mental Health Subaccount (1991) 45% to the Protective Services Growth Special Account 50% to the Behavioral Health Growth Special Account

Govt Code §30027.9.1 pp. 34-35

County Intervention Support Services Subaccount Allows Department of Health Care Services to notify the Controller, DOF and a county that said county is failing to

perform a federal Medicaid program (applies to Drug Medi-Cal and specialty mental health services) to the extent federal Medicaid funds are at risk. The Controller then deposits the county’s revenues for the program in question into the County Intervention Support Services Subaccount.

This section is intended to cover a case where a county exercises its right of first refusal for specialty mental health services or a county refuses to perform Drug Medi-Cal or is performing inadequately (beneficiaries are not receiving entitled services).

DHCS will have access to those funds in the County Intervention Support Services Subaccount. DHCS notifies the Controller to stop putting funds into the County Intervention Support Services Account

44

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Govt Code §30027.9.2 p. 35

The language from this section originated in the constitutional amendment. The constitutional amendment says that 2011 Realignment legislation will define the method for determining the amount that counties would otherwise receive if the revenue source changes. Also includes continuous appropriation language.

In the constitutional amendment, this section has the priority order of payments. That language can only be put in the constitution – not in statute. Hence, it is not included in the TBL.

Govt Code §30028 pp. 35-36

Defines how Juvenile Justice Account funds are allocated to the subaccounts prior to 2012-13.

Govt Code §30028.1 p. 36

Defines how funds are allocated to the Juvenile Justice Subaccount and to its Special Accounts in 2012-13 and beyond.

Govt Code §30028.5 pp. 36-37

Defines how funds are allocated to the Health and Human Services Account in 2011-12 and repeals this section on January 1, 2014.

ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE STATE FUNDS TO LOCAL FUNDS Govt Code §30029 pp. 37-43

Clarifies that the 2011-12 fiscal year includes the cash received in July and August of 2012. Repeals this section on January 1, 2014.

Govt Code §30029.05 pp. 43-52

Establishes process for allocating funds to counties in 2012-13 and beyond. Allocates Mental Health Account funds to the Mental Health Subaccount of the Sales Tax Account in the Local

Revenue Fund (1991) on the 20th of each month. Allocates Trial Court Security Subaccount funds on a county-by-county basis. Allocates Local Community Corrections Subaccount funds on a county-by-county basis for 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Beginning in 2014-15, funds shall be allocated pursuant to a schedule developed by DOF in consultation with CSAC. Allocates the DA/PD Subaccount funds on a county-by-county basis for 2012-13 and 2013-14. Beginning in 2014-15,

funds shall be allocated pursuant to a schedule developed by DOF in consultation with CSAC. Allocates funds to the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. Specifies the allocation out of the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Special Growth Account to specified local

public safety programs. Govt Code §30029.07 52-55

Specifies that the funds in the Special Growth Accounts at the state level shall be allocated to the corresponding subaccounts at the local level. The funds will be allocated pursuant to a schedule developed by DOF with criteria, in consultation with CSAC.

Beginning in 2015-16, requires each county treasurer to deposit 10% of funds received that fiscal year from each of the following into the Local Innovation Subaccount: Trial Court Security Growth Special Account, Community Corrections Growth Special Account, DA/PD Growth Special Account and Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account.

$200 million for child welfare services will be allocated monthly, per statute (percentages still need to be filled in). Sets aside a portion of the Protective Services Growth Subaccount to counties who meet spending thresholds that

45

Attachment #9


Section Purpose would have allowed the county access to the CWS Augmentation fund. Exempts counties under 50,000 from the expenditure requirement.

Includes a statutory allocation for the CWS Augmentation by county (percentages still need to be filled in). Specifies that in 2012-13, 90% of the Protective Services Growth Special Account shall be allocated in the same

proportion as the 2012-13 base funding. In 2013-14 and beyond, allocate in the same proportion as the base funding is allocated for that fiscal year. DSS, after consulting with CSAC shall provide a schedule to the Controller.

For 2012-13, the Community Corrections Growth Special Account shall by allocated by the Controller pursuant to a schedule provided by DOF. DOF shall consider a number of factors articulated in paragraphs (e)(1-7).

Govt Code §30029.1.1 pp. 55-56

Allocations out of the Juvenile Justice Subaccount to counties.

Govt Code §30029.2 pp. 56-57

Repeals the 2011-12 HHS allocations on January 1, 2014.

Govt Code §30029.2.1 pp. 57-59

Specifies the county-by-county allocations out of the Protective Services Subaccount in 2012-13 (percentages need to be filled in), includes a 59th county for purposes of contracting back for state programs.

Designates an amount for state contracts. Specifies the county-by-county allocations process of the Protective Services Subaccount in 2013-14 and beyond,

pursuant to a schedule. Govt Code §30029.2.2 p. 59

Behavioral Health Subaccount shall be allocated pursuant to a schedule provided by DOF in consultation with CSAC.

Govt Code §30029.2.3 pp. 59-60

Contracting. A county or counties may contract back with state for Drug Medi-Cal or agency adoptions. Counties may contract with another county, joint powers agreement or county consortium for any program, service or activity. Exempts state contracts from the Public Contract Code

Govt Code §30029.2.4 pp. 60-61

Contract Special Account. Allows a county to contract with DSS for specified state services on behalf of all counties. The designate county receives the allocation as the 59th item in the allocation schedule. If full funding is not provided, DSS can reduce the contract.

Welfare &Institutions Code §1954 (p. 61)

Repeals the section appropriating Youthful Offender Block Grant funds, given that Govt Code §§30028.1 and 30029.1.1 define allocation methodology for 2012-13 and beyond..

Welfare &Institutions Code §17600.05 p. 62

Mental Health Growth Subaccount. Creates a Mental Health Growth Subaccount in the 1991 Realignment structure to receive growth funds from the 2011 Realignment. Clarifies that the growth deposited in the Mental Health Growth Subaccount shall not be used for calculating 1991 growth.

Welfare &Institutions Transfers $93,379,252 into the CalWORKs MOE Subaccount monthly.

46

Attachment #9


Section Purpose Code § 17601.20 pp. 62-63

Clarifies that the deposits into the Mental Health Subaccount shall not be used for calculating 1991 base or growth.

47

Sales Tax Revenue pursuant to Sections 6051.15 and 6201.15 of the Revenue and Taxation CodeFor the Period: September October November

Period: 8/16/2012‐9/15/2012 Period: 9/16/2012‐10/15/2012 Period: 10/16/2012‐11/15/2012

Gross Sales Tax Revenue: $403,664,151.89 $421,425,564.53 $509,487,143.62 Less: Transfer to Mental Health Account 93,379,252.00 93,379,252.00 93,379,252.00Net Revenue Available to Apportion 310,284,899.89 328,046,312.53 416,107,891.62Law Enforcement Services Account (detail below): 35.8025% 111,089,751.28 117,448,781.04 148,977,027.90Support Services Account (detail below): 64.1975% 199,195,148.61 210,597,531.49 267,130,863.72To Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to Government Code section 30027.5(d) 0.00 0.00 0.00To Sales and Use Tax Growth Account: ** 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total to apportion 100.0000% $310,284,899.89 $328,046,312.53 $416,107,891.62

Law Enforcement Services Account: $111,089,751.28 $117,448,781.04 $148,977,027.90 Community Corrections Subaccount: 58.0217% 64,456,162.22 68,145,779.38 86,439,004.20 District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount: 1.0050% 1,116,452.00 1,180,360.25 1,497,219.13 Juvenile Justice Subaccount (detail below): ** 6.8012% 7,555,436.16 7,987,926.50 10,132,225.62 Trial Court Security Subaccount (detail below): 34.1721% 37,961,700.90 40,134,714.91 50,908,578.95 Total Law Enforcement Services Account 100.0000% $111,089,751.28 $117,448,781.04 $148,977,027.90

Support Services Account: $199,195,148.61 $210,597,531.49 $267,130,863.72 Behavioral Health Subaccount (detail below): 37.0264% 73,754,792.50 77,976,684.40 98,908,942.12 Protective Services Subaccount: 62.9736% 125,440,356.11 132,620,847.09 168,221,921.60 Total Support Services Account 100.0000% $199,195,148.61 $210,597,531.49 $267,130,863.72

Behavioral Health Subaccount: $73,754,792.50 $77,976,684.40 $98,908,942.12 Behavioral Health Subaccount to apportion: 73,329,459.17 77,551,351.07 98,483,608.79 Women and Children's Residential Treatment Services Special Account: **** 425,333.33 425,333.33 425,333.33 Net to apportion to Behavioral Health Subaccount $73,754,792.50 $77,976,684.40 $98,908,942.12

Juvenile Justice Subaccount: $7,555,436.16 $7,987,926.50 $10,132,225.62 Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account: ** 5.519% 416,984.52 440,853.66 559,197.53 Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account: ** 94.481% 7,138,451.64 7,547,072.84 9,573,028.09 Total Juvenile Justice Subaccount 100.000% $7,555,436.16 $7,987,926.50 $10,132,225.62

Trial Court Security Subaccount: $37,961,700.90 $40,134,714.91 $50,908,578.95 Less: Reimbursable costs distributed to the Undistributed Account 16,509,494.00 16,509,494.00 0.00 Net Trial Court Security Subaccount $21,452,206.90 $23,625,220.91 $50,908,578.95

To Sales and Use Tax Growth Account: *

Vehicle License Fees Revenue pursuant to Sections 11001.5 and 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code For the Period: September October November

Period: 8/16/2012‐9/30/2012 Period: 10/1/2012‐10/31/2012 Period: 11/1/2012‐11/30/2012

Gross Vehicle License Fees Revenue: $58,110,771.55 $39,884,673.03 $57,179,056.47Revenue transferred from Sales Tax: 0.00 0.00 0.00Net Revenue Available to Apportion

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount: Booking and Processing Fees ** 4,154,920.17 2,851,754.12 4,088,302.54 California Emergency Management Agency ** 8.99758189% 4,852,249.42 3,330,370.20 4,774,451.22 Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) ** 23.54363596% 12,703,014.66 8,718,789.52 12,499,341.74 Juvenile Justice Program ** 23.54363596% 12,703,014.66 8,718,789.52 12,499,341.74 Juvenile Probation Activities ** 33.37876457% 18,008,528.10 12,360,260.17 17,719,789.60 Juvenile Probation Camp Funding ** 6.46955375% 3,492,457.38 2,397,068.85 3,436,461.29 Rural Small County Assistance (Sheriffs) ** 4.06682787% 2,196,587.16 1,507,640.65 2,161,368.34 Total 100.00000000% $58,110,771.55 $39,884,673.03 $57,179,056.47

* The 2012‐2013 Sales and Use Tax Growth Account allocation dates are yet to be determined** Payment to be made at future date. Please refer to the 2013 schedule on the apportionment page*** A payment of $425,333.33 to be made in July and a payment of $425,333.37 to be made in August

State Controller's OfficeDivision Of Accounting And Reporting

Local Revenue Fund 2011 Reconciliation2012‐13 Fiscal Year

Page 1 of 448

denrique

Typewritten Text

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #10

Sales Tax Revenue pursuant to Sections 6051.15 and 6201.15 of the Revenue and Taxation CodeFor the Period:

Gross Sales Tax Revenue: Less: Transfer to Mental Health AccountNet Revenue Available to ApportionLaw Enforcement Services Account (detail below):Support Services Account (detail below):To Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to Government Code section 30027.5(d)To Sales and Use Tax Growth Account: ** Total to apportion

Law Enforcement Services Account: Community Corrections Subaccount: District Attorney and Public Defender Subaccount: Juvenile Justice Subaccount (detail below): ** Trial Court Security Subaccount (detail below): Total Law Enforcement Services Account

Support Services Account: Behavioral Health Subaccount (detail below): Protective Services Subaccount: Total Support Services Account

Behavioral Health Subaccount: Behavioral Health Subaccount to apportion: Women and Children's Residential Treatment Services Special Account: **** Net to apportion to Behavioral Health Subaccount

Juvenile Justice Subaccount: Juvenile Reentry Grant Special Account: ** Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account: ** Total Juvenile Justice Subaccount

Trial Court Security Subaccount: Less: Reimbursable costs distributed to the Undistributed Account Net Trial Court Security Subaccount


Vehicle License Fees Revenue pursuant to Sections 11001.5 and 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code For the Period:

Gross Vehicle License Fees Revenue: Revenue transferred from Sales Tax:Net Revenue Available to Apportion

Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount: Booking and Processing Fees ** California Emergency Management Agency ** Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) ** Juvenile Justice Program ** Juvenile Probation Activities ** Juvenile Probation Camp Funding ** Rural Small County Assistance (Sheriffs) ** Total


December January FebruaryPeriod: 11/16/2012‐12/15/2012 Period: 12/16/2012‐1/15/2013 Period: 1/16/2013‐2/15/2013

$409,572,714.82 $404,199,484.52 $626,366,459.5693,379,252.00 93,379,252.00 93,379,252.00316,193,462.82 310,820,232.52 532,987,207.56113,205,164.53 111,281,413.75 190,822,744.99202,988,298.29 199,538,818.77 342,164,462.57

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

$316,193,462.82 $310,820,232.52 $532,987,207.56

$113,205,164.53 $111,281,413.75 $190,822,744.9965,683,560.95 64,567,368.04 110,718,600.631,137,711.90 1,118,378.21 1,917,768.597,699,309.65 7,568,471.51 12,978,236.5338,684,582.03 38,027,195.99 65,208,139.24

$113,205,164.53 $111,281,413.75 $190,822,744.99

$202,988,298.29 $199,538,818.77 $342,164,462.5775,159,259.28 73,882,041.19 126,691,182.57127,829,039.01 125,656,777.58 215,473,280.00$202,988,298.29 $199,538,818.77 $342,164,462.57

$75,159,259.28 $73,882,041.19 $126,691,182.5774,733,925.95 73,456,707.86 126,265,849.24

425,333.33 425,333.33 425,333.33$75,159,259.28 $73,882,041.19 $126,691,182.57

$7,699,309.65 $7,568,471.51 $12,978,236.53424,924.90 417,703.94 716,268.87

7,274,384.75 7,150,767.57 12,261,967.66$7,699,309.65 $7,568,471.51 $12,978,236.53

$38,684,582.03 $38,027,195.99 $65,208,139.240.00 0.00 0.00

$38,684,582.03 $38,027,195.99 $65,208,139.24

December January FebruaryPeriod: 12/1/2012‐12/31/2012 Period: 1/1/2013‐1/31/2013 Period: 2/1/2013‐2/28/2013

$30,618,359.59 $42,776,824.37 $34,963,648.300.00 0.00 0.00

2,189,212.71 3,058,542.94 2,499,900.852,556,633.03 3,571,864.83 2,919,464.636,693,173.41 9,351,013.81 7,643,053.526,693,173.41 9,351,013.81 7,643,053.529,488,629.63 13,256,537.87 10,835,234.611,840,163.41 2,570,887.14 2,101,315.261,157,373.99 1,616,963.97 1,321,625.91

$30,618,359.59 $42,776,824.37 $34,963,648.30



Page 2 of 449

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #10













March April MayPeriod: 2/16/2013‐3/15/2013 Period: 3/16/2013‐4/15/2013 Period: 4/16/2013‐5/15/2013

$400,301,922.01 $361,716,343.53 $541,840,270.0393,379,252.00 93,379,252.00 93,379,252.00306,922,670.01 268,337,091.53 448,461,018.03109,885,988.93 96,071,387.20 160,560,255.98197,036,681.08 172,265,704.33 287,900,762.05

0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00

$306,922,670.01 $268,337,091.53 $448,461,018.03

$109,885,988.93 $96,071,387.20 $160,560,255.9863,757,718.84 55,742,252.06 93,159,790.041,104,354.19 965,517.44 1,613,630.587,473,565.88 6,534,007.19 10,920,024.1337,550,350.02 32,829,610.51 54,866,811.23

$109,885,988.93 $96,071,387.20 $160,560,255.98

$197,036,681.08 $172,265,704.33 $287,900,762.0572,955,589.68 63,783,788.75 106,599,287.76124,081,091.40 108,481,915.58 181,301,474.29$197,036,681.08 $172,265,704.33 $287,900,762.05

$72,955,589.68 $63,783,788.75 $106,599,287.7672,530,256.35 63,358,455.42 106,173,954.43

425,333.33 425,333.33 425,333.33$72,955,589.68 $63,783,788.75 $106,599,287.76

$7,473,565.88 $6,534,007.19 $10,920,024.13412,466.10 360,611.86 602,676.13

7,061,099.78 6,173,395.33 10,317,348.00$7,473,565.88 $6,534,007.19 $10,920,024.13

$37,550,350.02 $32,829,610.51 $54,866,811.230.00 0.00 0.00

$37,550,350.02 $32,829,610.51 $54,866,811.23

March April MayPeriod: 3/1/2013‐3/31/2013 Period: 4/1/2013‐4/30/2013 Period: 5/1/2013‐5/31/2013

$43,306,639.24 $42,027,759.13 $41,560,421.870.00 0.00 0.00

3,096,424.71 3,004,984.78 2,971,570.163,616,104.38 3,509,317.89 3,470,295.239,466,831.34 9,187,268.15 9,085,108.229,466,831.34 9,187,268.15 9,085,108.2213,420,727.49 13,024,402.54 12,879,574.742,602,729.02 2,525,868.32 2,497,781.351,636,990.96 1,588,649.30 1,570,983.95

$43,306,639.24 $42,027,759.13 $41,560,421.87



Page 3 of 450

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #10













June July August TotalPeriod: 5/16/2013‐6/15/2013 Period: 6/16/2013‐7/15/2013 Period: 7/16/2013‐8/15/2013 Period: 8/16/2012‐8/15/2013

$431,694,518.11 $574,332,441.17 $432,013,479.01 $5,516,614,492.8093,379,252.00 93,379,252.00 93,379,252.00 1,120,551,024.00338,315,266.11 480,953,189.17 338,634,227.01 4,396,063,468.80121,125,323.15 172,061,403.04 203,758.21 1,452,733,000.00217,189,942.96 308,891,786.13 0.00 2,604,900,000.00

0.00 0.00 7,927,496.20 7,927,496.200.00 0.00 330,502,972.60 330,502,972.60

$338,315,266.11 $480,953,189.17 $338,634,227.01 $4,396,063,468.80

$121,125,323.15 $172,061,403.04 $203,758.21 $1,452,733,000.0070,278,971.62 99,950,792.02 0.00 842,900,000.001,217,309.50 1,731,298.21 0.00 14,600,000.008,237,975.48 11,513,063.14 203,758.21 98,804,000.0041,391,066.55 58,866,249.67 0.00 496,429,000.00

$121,125,323.15 $172,061,403.04 $203,758.21 $1,452,733,000.00

$217,189,942.96 $308,891,786.13 $0.00 $2,604,900,000.0080,417,617.04 114,370,814.71 0.00 964,500,000.00136,772,325.92 194,520,971.42 0.00 1,640,400,000.00$217,189,942.96 $308,891,786.13 $0.00 $2,604,900,000.00

$80,417,617.04 $114,370,814.71 $0.00 $964,500,000.0079,992,283.71 113,520,148.01 0.00 959,396,000.00

425,333.33 850,666.70 0.00 5,104,000.00$80,417,617.04 $114,370,814.71 $0.00 $964,500,000.00

$8,237,975.48 $11,513,063.14 $203,758.21 $98,804,000.00454,653.87 635,405.95 11,245.43 5,452,992.76

7,783,321.61 10,877,657.19 192,512.78 93,351,007.24$8,237,975.48 $11,513,063.14 $203,758.21 $98,804,000.00

$41,391,066.55 $58,866,249.67 $0.00 $496,429,000.000.00 0.00 0.00 33,018,988.00

$41,391,066.55 $58,866,249.67 $0.00 $463,410,012.00

$330,502,972.60 $330,502,972.60

June July August TotalPeriod: 6/1/2013‐6/30/2013 Period: 7/1/2013‐7/31/2013 Period: 8/1/2013‐8/15/2013 Period: 8/16/2012‐8/15/2013

$29,930,578.16 $40,184,051.15 $21,429,720.94 $481,972,503.800.00 0.00 7,927,496.20 7,927,496.20

29,357,217.14 489,900,000.00

2,140,036.34 2,873,159.66 2,071,191.02 35,000,000.002,499,203.28 3,355,368.27 2,474,677.62 40,930,000.006,542,824.39 8,784,233.58 6,425,347.66 107,100,000.006,542,824.39 8,784,233.58 6,425,347.66 107,100,000.009,275,486.16 12,453,037.46 9,117,791.63 151,840,000.001,798,827.75 2,415,061.47 1,751,378.76 29,430,000.001,131,375.85 1,518,957.13 1,091,482.79 18,500,000.00

$29,930,578.16 $40,184,051.15 $29,357,217.14 $489,900,000.00



Page 4 of 451

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #10

Date of Payment *

Gross Sales and Use Tax Growth Account Revenue: $330,502,972.60Law Enforcement Services Growth Subaccount (detail below): 35.0000% 115,676,040.41Support Services Growth Subaccount (detail below): 65.0000% 214,826,932.19 Total to apportion 100.0000% $330,502,972.60

Law Enforcement Services Growth Subaccount: $115,676,040.41 Community Correction Growth Special Account: 75.0000% 86,757,030.31 10/11/2013 District Attorney and Public Defender Growth Special Account: 5.0000% 5,783,802.02 10/11/2013 Juvenile Justice Growth Special Account: 10.0000% 11,567,604.04 10/11/2013 Trial Court Security Growth Special Account: 10.0000% 11,567,604.04 10/11/2013 Total Law Enforcement Services Growth Subaccount 100.0000% $115,676,040.41

Support Services Growth Subaccount: $214,826,932.19 Behavioral Health Services Growth Special Account: 12.9700% 27,863,053.10 Pending Mental Health Subaccount: 5.0000% 10,741,346.61 Pending Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Child Welfare Services: 40.0000% 85,930,772.88 9/16/2013 Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Non CWS (detail below): 42.0300% 90,291,759.60 Total Support Services Growth Subaccount 100.0000% $214,826,932.19

Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Non CWS: $90,291,759.60 Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Non CWS (10%): 10.0000% 9,029,175.96 9/16/2013 Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Non CWS (90%): 90.0000% 81,262,583.64 9/16/2013 Total to Protective Services Growth Special Account ‐ Non CWS 100.0000% $90,291,759.60

* The 2012‐2013 Sales and Use Tax Growth Account allocation dates are yet to be determined.

State Controller's OfficeDivision Of Accounting And ReportingLocal Revenue Fund 2011 Reconciliation2012‐2013 Fiscal Year Sales Tax Growth

52

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #11

53

denrique

Typewritten Text

Attachment #12

Topic Date Page

www.csacinstitute.org

ABOUT THE CSAC INSTITUTE

The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) is the voice of California’s 58 counties at tstate and federal level. The Association’s long-term objective is to significantly improve the fiscahealth of all California counties – from Alpine County with a little more than 1,200 people to Los Angeles County with more than 10 million – so they can adequately meet the demand for vital public programs and services. CSAC also places a strong emphasis on educating the public aboutthe value and need for county programs and services.

he l

The CSAC Institute for Excellence in County Government is a professional, practical continuing education program for county officials. The experience is designed to expand the capacity and capability of county elected officials and senior executives to provide extraordinary services to their communities. The Institute is a program of CSAC and was established in 2008 with the first courses offered in early 2009.

For more information please visit www.csacinstitute.org.

COURSE MATERIALS...14. 2012-13 Allocations from the Juvenile Justice Subaccount of the Law...

Documents

Transcript of COURSE MATERIALS...14. 2012-13 Allocations from the Juvenile Justice Subaccount of the Law...