HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09111984 - 2.4 TU: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
' Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor,
County Administrator Costa
b
DATE: September 11, 1984 V Vu /
SUBJECT: Payment of Incarceration Fees
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Approve recommendation of the County Administrator to withhold implementa-
tion of Penal Code Section 1203 . 1c permitting the courts to order defendants
to pay all or a portion of costs of the defendant' s incarceration; also
order a review of this program prior to December 31, 1985 .
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 1984 your Board referred the above matter to County Counsel,
Superior and Municipal Courts, Sheriff-Coroner, and this office to deter-
mine the desirability of implementing these Penal Code Sections by county
ordinance. The Office of the County Administrator conducted meetings with
the Law and Justice Departments to explore the feasibility of this new
program. After several meetings a concensus was reached by the representa-
tives of the Law and Justice Departments that development of an ordinance
to allow the courts to order defendants to pay all or a portion of
reasonable costs of defendant ' s incarceration was highly desirable but
would not be cost effective. Other problems were found to be connected
with the proposed program also.
The judges felt that the probability of a significant number of defendants
being able to pay a substantial portion of the cost of incarceration was
doubtful. The judges of both the Superior and Municipal Courts agreed
that it would be difficult to allocate court hearing time for the purposes
of ordering determination of eligibility to reimburse the county and
provide the necessary court order to see that this work was undertaken
and reported back to them.
The County Probation Officer has carefully reviewed the number of persons
who potentially would be determined to be eligible to pay part or all of
the costs of incarceration and has determined that the professional,
screening and Collection staff costs would likely exceed actual collections .
The Office of the Sheriff-Coroner conducted a survey of 17 counties and
determined that the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange were the only ones
conducting a program for payment of incarceration costs. Los Angeles
County does not believe the program is cost-effective, but Orange County
is apparently realizing a return of $60, 000 a year. Eleven counties
considered or appraised the desirability of instituting the program and
decided against it on the basis that they believed the cost would exceed
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATOR
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 11, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
Also REFERRED to Office of Revenue and Reimbursement for further review.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II, III ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
QDATE
�SHOWN.
ATTESTED ��'�` ^ � 8y
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
0009
M382/7•83 BY DEPUTY
-2-
the income. The 11 Counties include Alameda, Riverside , Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Diego, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, and Solano. The Counties of Colusa, Fresno, Kern and
Ventura were contacted and indicated that they had not explored
the feasibility of instituting such a program.
It should be noted that individuals incarcerated and on probation,
are already subject to payment of fines, penalty assessments, fees
and other costs associated with their conviction and incarceration.
The imposition of additional costs in addition to those mentioned
decreases the likelihood that payment (s) will be made.
All of the above are reasons for withholding implementation of
this legislation although the objective is undoubtedly desirable .
Accordingly, it is further recommended that this matter be reviewed
again in the fall of 1985 for further report by December 31, 1985 .
Orig: Administrator
cc: Superior Court
Bay Municipal Court
Delta Municipal Court
Mt. Diablo Municipal Court
t Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court
Sheriff-Coroner
Probation Officer
Public Defender
District Attorney
Marshal
County Counsel
Criminal Justice Agency Director
i