Unseen Billions: Every year, California makes a massive investment in jails and probation, with little county transparency or state oversight
By Maureen Washburn | Grecia Reséndez
In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law California Assembly Bill (AB) 109: the Public Safety Realignment Act. This bill significantly changed California’s criminal justice system as it allowed individuals with low-level offenses to be sentenced to county jail or placed on county probation instead of state prison and parole. The goal was to cut costs, reduce recidivism, and, above all, address inhumane and unconstitutional state prison overcrowding, which was claiming the lives of one imprisoned person every week (Brown v. Plata, 2011). To achieve this, the state began compensating counties for managing non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex-related cases at the local level. To support implementation, the state allocated a portion of the sales tax to a Local Revenue Fund through which a number of large grant programs would flow. In Fiscal Year 2022 – 23, the state disbursed more than $8 billion through this fund, with $2 billion of this amount — the equivalent of more than 1% of California’s state budget — given to counties for AB 109 programs (Controller, 2024).
This paper examines AB 109 funding, including how counties report data, the amount given to law enforcement, and strategies for boosting oversight of this critical funding stream. We conclude that AB 109 reporting is unsystematic, allowing critical planning and spending decisions to go unscrutinized. For example, ambiguous reporting makes it difficult to analyze how much funding is allocated to various law enforcement programs, behavioral health services, or community-based options. In the same vein, we highlight counties with the most inconsistent reports and raise concerns around roll-over funds and allocations to for-profit corporations. We also offer examples of grant programs with more transparent reporting, which can serve as models for AB 109. Finally, we provide recommendations to ensure all AB 109 funds are serving the public interest.
Our examination of AB 109 funding finds:
County plans are cursory, offering little information about how funds are being spent.
Counties report spending data inconsistently, making it difficult to track budgets over time or to compare across counties.
The state asks far less of counties when implementing AB 109 than it does for other, much smaller, funding programs.
Absent oversight and accountability, counties may mismanage AB 109 funds.
Law enforcement agencies receive the vast majority of AB 109 funds despite significant declines in jail and probation populations.
San Francisco: Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2024. 12p.