The 2017-18 Budget: Governor’s Criminal Fine and Fee Proposals

The 2017-18 Budget: Governor’s Criminal Fine and Fee Proposals MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • MARCH 3, 2017 2017-18 BUDGET 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System Individuals convicted of criminal offenses, including traffic violations, are often required to pay various fines and fees. Collection programs operated by counties and trial courts are responsible for collecting payments and are able to make use of various collection tools and sanctions to do so. The collected revenues are then deposited into a number of state and local funds, such as the State Penalty Fund (SPF), to support various programs and services. In recent years, various funds that receive such revenue have faced operational shortfalls or fund insolvency. Governor’s Proposals The Governor’s 2017-18 budget includes three proposals related to the state’s criminal fine and fee system. Specifically, the budget proposes to: • Change How Fines and Fees Are Distributed From SPF. Fine and revenue deposited into the SPF is distributed among nine other state funds, with each receiving a certain percentage under state law. The Governor proposes an alternative allocation plan that reflects the projected reduction in SPF revenues and the expiration of various one-time offsets that were provided in the current year. Specifically, the Governor proposes to eliminate the statutory formulas dictating how SPF revenues are distributed and, instead, appropriate revenues directly to certain programs based on his priorities. Under the plan, some programs would no longer receive SPF support, while others would be reduced differently than under existing law. • Increase Resources for Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Court-Ordered Debt Program. Currently, collection programs can contract with FTB’s Court-Ordered Debt Collection Program to collect court-ordered debt. The Governor’s budget proposes a $1.1 million augmentation from the Court Collection Account for the program to maintain existing service levels and to eliminate a backlog of work. • Repeal Driver’s License Holds and Suspensions for Failure to Pay Fines and Fees (FTP). Under existing law, courts can place a hold on an individual’s driver’s license for FTP or notify the Department of Motor Vehicles to suspend the license immediately for FTP. The Governor proposes to eliminate the ability to use driver’s license holds and suspensions as a sanction for an individual’s FTP. LAO Recommendations Modify Governor’s SPF Proposal to Reflect Legislative Priorities. The Governor’s proposed SPF approach is a step in the right direction in increasing state control over SPF revenue, but it is likely that the Legislature has different funding priorities. Accordingly, we recommend that the www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 2017-18 BUDGET Legislature modify the Governor’s proposal to reflect its funding priorities by directing programs to take specific actions to implement reductions in SPF support. Alternatively, the Legislature could take a much broader approach to changing the overall distribution of fine and fee revenue by eliminating all statutory distribution formulas and depositing nearly all fine and fee revenue into the state General Fund for subsequent appropriation in the annual budget act. This would allow the Legislature to maximize its control over fine and fee revenue and ensure that annual funding for programs is based on workload and legislative priorities. Approve Governor’s FTB Proposal. We recommend the Legislature approve the additional resources proposed for FTB’s Court-Ordered Debt Program, as they would help maintain, and potentially, increase collections annually. We also continue to recommend the Legislature take steps to improve the overall collection process, such as by (1) implementing a new incentive structure for collections, (2) requiring improved reporting on collections, and (3) conducting an analysis to determine the collectability of outstanding fines and fees. Weigh Trade-Offs of Potential Changes to Driver’s License Sanction and Consider Alternatives. In considering the Governor’s proposal, the Legislature will want to weigh the relative trade-offs in repealing the driver’s license hold and suspension sanction for FTP. While such a repeal would provide relief to such individuals, it would also negatively impact the ability of collection programs to enforce court-ordered fines and fees. The Legislature could also consider alternatives to the Governor’s proposal in balancing these trade-offs. In addition, we continue to recommend the Legislature require a comprehensive evaluation of collection practices and sanctions, as well as reevaluate the overall structure of the criminal fine and fee system. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET INTRODUCTION Individuals convicted of criminal offenses, of the funds that receive fine and fee revenue have including traffic violations, are often required faced operational shortfalls in recent years. to pay various fines and fees as part of their The Governor’s 2017-18 budget includes three punishment. The revenue from these payments specific proposals related to the state’s criminal are deposited in a number of state and local funds fine and fee system. In this report, we provide a to support various programs and services. As a general overview of the fine and fee system and result, the state has an interest in ensuring that then discuss each of the Governor’s proposals. these criminal fines and fees are collected in a In particular, we assess the impact that each cost-effective manner that maximizes the amount proposal would have on the system and make of revenue available to support these programs. recommendations for legislative consideration. This is particularly important given that a number BACKGROUND During court proceedings, trial courts typically surcharges, assessments, and restitution orders), levy fines and fees upon individuals convicted of which can significantly increase the total amount criminal offenses (including traffic violations). owed. State law also authorizes counties and courts Collectively, these various criminal fines and fees to levy additional charges depending on the specific are often referred to as court-ordered debt. (Parking violation and other factors. Finally, statute gives judges violations are not considered court-ordered debt as some discretion to reduce the total amount owed by state trial courts do not administer such violations.) waiving or reducing certain charges. As shown in the As we discuss below, the state’s fine and fee system figure, the total payment owed by an individual can essentially consists of three distinct phases—the be many times greater than the base fine. assessment of fines and fees, the collection of Collection of Fines and Fees fines and fees, and the distribution of fine and fee revenue to various state and local funds. Counties are statutorily responsible for collecting fine and fee payments. However, some Assessment of Fines and Fees collection duties are often delegated back to the Trial courts are responsible for determining the courts. As a result, collection programs may be total amount of fines and fees owed by individuals operated by both courts and counties. Collection upon their conviction of a criminal offense. This programs can collect the debt themselves as well calculation begins with a base fine that is set in as contract with private collection vendors or the state law for each criminal offense. For example, as Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Court-Ordered Debt shown in Figure 1 (see next page), the base fine for Collection Program. We note, however, FTB will the infraction of a stop sign violation is $35, while only accept cases that meet specific parameters. the base fine for the misdemeanor of driving under For example, payment must be at least 90 days late. the influence of alcohol or drugs is $390. State law Currently, 54 of the state’s 58 collection programs then requires the court to add certain charges to the participate in FTB’s program in some way. base fine (such as other fines, fees, forfeitures, penalty www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 2017-18 BUDGET Programs Employ Various Collection Tools. debt becomes delinquent. Under state law, after Individuals who choose not to contest a violation, a minimum of a 20 calendar day notification plead guilty, or are convicted of a criminal offense of delinquency, collection programs can utilize must either provide full payment immediately or sanctions against an individual who either fails set up installment payments with the collection to pay their fines and fees (FTP) or fails to appear programs. Collection programs employ various in court without good cause (FTA). Typically, tools to help individuals make timely payments. For collection programs progressively add sanctions example, some programs send monthly billing slips to gradually increase pressure on debtors to make to individuals on installment plans or use payment payment. While the same sanctions are available to kiosks. all collection programs, each program can vary in Various Sanctions Available to Collect how it uses these sanctions and when it leverages Debt. If an individual does not pay on time, the these sanctions. Common sanctions include: Figure 1 Various Fines and Fees Substantially Add to Base Fines As of January 1, 2017 Stop Sign Violation DUI of Alcohol/Drugs How Charge Is Calculated (Infraction) (Misdemeanor) Standard Fines and Fees Base Fine Depends on violation $35 $390 State Penalty Assessment $10 for every $10 of a base finea 40 390 County Penalty Assessment $7 for every $10 of a base finea 28 273 Court Construction Penalty Assessment $5 for every $10 of a base finea 20 195 Proposition 69 DNA Penalty Assessment $1 for every $10 of a base finea 4 39 DNA Identification Fund Penalty Assessment $4 for every $10 of a base finea 16 156 EMS Penalty Assessment $2 for every $10 of a base finea 8 78 EMAT Penalty Assessment $4 per conviction 4 4 State Surcharge 20% of base fine 7 78 Court Operations Assessment $40 per conviction 40 40 Conviction Assessment Fee $35 per infraction conviction and 35 30 $30 per felony or misdemeanor conviction Night Court Fee $1 per fine and fee imposed 1 1 Restitution Fine $150 minimum per misdemeanor — 150 conviction and $300 minimum per felony conviction Subtotals ($238) ($1,824) Examples of Additional Fines and Fees That Could Apply DUI Lab Test Penalty Assessment Actual costs up to $50 for specific — $50 violations Alcohol Education Penalty Assessment Up to $50 — 50 County Alcohol and Drug Program Penalty Up to $100 — 100 Assessment Subtotals (—) ($200) Totals $238 $2,024 a The base fine is rounded up to the nearest $10 to calculate these additional charges. For example, the $35 base fine for a failure to stop would be rounded up to $40. DUI = driving under the influence; EMS = Emergency Medical Services; and EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation. 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET • Civil Assessment. Current law authorizes removed by the court once an individual collection programs to impose a civil appears in court or makes payment to assessment of up to $300 for FTA or FTP. address his or her debt. • Wage Garnishments and Bank Levies. • Driver’s License Suspensions. As required Collection programs may impose wage under current law, DMV will suspend an garnishments or bank levies to collect monies individual’s license (1) if there are two or to address delinquent debt. For example, the more holds or (2) if notification is received FTB Court-Ordered Debt Program identifies to suspend the license immediately. a debtor’s assets through automated searches Individuals whose driver’s license will of wage, employment, and financial records be subject to suspension receive notice in order to administratively issue wage from the DMV that their license will be garnishments or bank levies. suspended by a specified date if they do not address all specified holds. Individuals • Driver’s License Holds. Under current whose driver’s licenses are suspended are law, courts can notify the Department of no longer legally allowed to drive. Once all Motor Vehicles (DMV) to place a hold on a holds are removed, the suspension is lifted. driver’s license for FTA or FTP. A driver’s Individuals must then pay a fee to have license hold generally only prevents an their license reissued or returned. individual from obtaining or renewing Amount Collected. Based on available data a license until the individual appears in court or pays the owed debt. A hold placed in Judicial Council reports, the total amount of for FTA may be added and removed at the criminal fines and fees collected has declined court’s discretion. Thus, courts use a hold annually since 2013-14. As shown in Figure 2, total for FTA as a tool to encourage individuals Figure 2 to contact the court. Total Collections Has Declined in Recent Years In contrast, a hold for (In Billions) FTP for a specific debt $2.0 may only be placed 1.8 once for that debt— thereby resulting in 1.6 most courts leaving 1.4 the hold in place until 1.2 an individual pays 1.0 off the debt in full. 0.8 Additional holds for FTA or FTP for other 0.6 Delinquent criminal offenses 0.4 Nondelinquenta can then result in 0.2 the suspension of the license, which we 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 discuss in more detail a Actual amounts in some years may be higher as collection programs are not required to report nondelinquent collections. below. Holds will be www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 2017-18 BUDGET collections decreased by nearly $200 million—from Distribution of Fines and Fees $1.8 billion in 2013-14 to $1.6 billion in 2015-16. Distribution Among Numerous State and The $1.6 billion consists of about $905 million Local Funds. State law (and county board of (56 percent) in debt that was not delinquent and supervisor resolutions for certain local charges) $720 million (44 percent) in delinquent debt. dictates a very complex process for the distribution Balance of Outstanding Debt. Every year, the of fine and fee revenue to numerous state and local courts estimate the total outstanding balance of debt funds. State law requires that a portion of fines owed by individuals. This balance may decrease and fees be allocated to specific purposes prior when individuals make payments or debt is resolved to distributing revenue to various state and local in an alternative manner, such as when a portion of funds, such as to support most collection program debt is dismissed because the individual performs operational costs related to collecting delinquent community service in lieu of payment. However, this debt. Additionally, state law includes some amount generally grows each year as some amount distributions that vary by criminal offense and of newly imposed fines and fees goes unpaid and authorizes local governments to determine how is added to the amount of unresolved debt from certain fines or fees are to be distributed among prior years. As shown in Figure 3, an estimated various local funds. Finally, as we discuss below, $12.3 billion in fines and fees remained outstanding state law includes formulas for distributions of at the end of 2015-16. We would note, however, that certain fines and fees. (For more information about a large portion of this balance may not be collectable how criminal fine and fee revenue is distributed, as the costs of collection could outweigh the amount please see our January 2016 report, Improving that would actually be collected. California’s Criminal Fine and Fee System.) State Penalty Fund (SPF). One of the major state Figure 3 funds that receives criminal Outstanding Balance of Fines and Fees Continues to Grow fine and fee revenue is the (In Billions) SPF. Specifically, state law $14 requires that a $10 penalty assessment be added for 12 every $10 of the base fine, with 70 percent of the 10 revenue deposited into the SPF. (The remaining 8 30 percent is deposited 6 into county general funds.) As shown in Figure 4, the 4 amount deposited into the SPF is then split among 2 nine other state funds with each receiving a certain 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 percentage under state law. These funds, which can 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET also receive funds from other sources, then support Program, with any remaining funds reallocated to various state and local programs—including the specified other SPF-supported funds (such as the state’s victim compensation program (Restitution Peace Officers’ Training Fund). Figure 5 (see next Fund) and programs for state and local law page) describes each of the programs that receive enforcement (Peace Officers’ Training Fund and SPF support. Corrections Training Fund). As shown in the figure, State Receives Majority of Fine and Fee each of these funds primarily supports one specific Revenue. According to available data compiled program. We note that SPF revenues deposited by the State Controller’s Office and the judicial into the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund branch, a total of $1.7 billion in fine and fee are first used to support the Bus Driver Training revenue was distributed to state and local Figure 4 State Penalty Fund Revenues Support Various Funds and Programs FUNDS SUPPORTED PROGRAMS Victim Compensation Program 32% California Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program Restitution Fund California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces 25.7% Driver Training Penalty Assessment Funda Bus Driver Training Program 24% Peace Officers' Peace Officers Standards and Training Program Training Fund Victim-Witness Assistance Program 8.6% Victim-Witness Victim Information and Notification Everyday Program Rape Crisis Program Assistance Fund Homeless Youth and Exploitation Program Child Sex Abuse Treatment Program State Penalty Fund 7.9% Corrections Training Fund Standards and Training for Corrections Program Local Public Prosecutors 0.8% and Public Defenders Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Training Program (Capped at Training Fund $850,000) 0.7% Traumatic Brain Injury Fund Traumatic Brain Injury Program 0.3% Fish and Game DFW employee and training programs Preservation Fund $250,000 California Motorcyclist California Motorcyclist Safety Program Safety Fund a After deducting funds for driver training as dictated by state law, set amounts of remaining funds are first redistributed to four other funds (such as the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund). DFW = Department of Fish and Wildlife. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 2017-18 BUDGET Figure 5 Programs Supported by the State Penalty Fund Program Department Description Victim Compensation VCB Provides compensation to victims of violent crimes and eligible family members for various crime-related expenses (such as medical treatment, funeral expenses, and crime scene cleanup). Victim-Witness OES Provides grants to fund victim witness centers in each county. Centers Assistance provide multiple services such as assisting victims to navigate the criminal justice system and access other services. Victim Information and OES Provides immediate, automated telephone notification on the change in Notification Everyday custody or case status of incarcerated offenders. Rape Crisis OES Provides comprehensive services to victims of sexual assault to combat trauma and to navigate the criminal justice system. Homeless Youth and OES Provides services to homeless youth and youth involved in sexually Exploitation exploitive activities. Services include food, shelter, counseling, and referrals to other services. Child Sex Abuse OES Provides services to children who are victims of sexual abuse and Treatment appropriate family members to assist in the child’s recovery. Peace Officers POST Sets minimum selection and training standards for California law Standards and enforcement, develops and runs training programs, and reimburses local Training law enforcement for training. Standards and Training BSCC Develops minimum standards for local correctional officer selection and for Corrections training, certifies training courses for correctional staff, and reimburses local correctional agencies for some training. CalGRIP BSCC Provides grant funds to cities that engage in collaborative approaches to reducing gang and youth violence. In 2015-16, 19 cities received grants. CalWRAP DOJ Provides reimbursements to California district attorney offices for various services required by relocated witnesses and family members (such as temporary lodging). Motorcyclist Safety CHP Funds contracts for projects that increase motorcyclist safety. Employee education DFW Supports employee education and training programs for the department. and training Bus Driver Training CDE Certifies all school bus driver instructors and all instructors of bus drivers who transport farm laborers. Awards certification to drivers who complete a three- week classroom and driving course as well as other bus-related activities. Traumatic Brain Injury DOR Provides vocational rehabilitation and independent living services to individuals who suffer traumatic brain injuries at seven locations across California. Also provides referrals to other available services. Internet Crimes OES Provides grant funds to expand the activities (such as investigations) of five Against Children existing Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces that respond to offenders who use the Internet or other technology to sexually exploit children. Local Public OES Provides grant funds for the California District Attorneys Association and Prosecutors the California Public Defenders Association to provide their attorneys with and Public Defenders statewide training, education, and research. Training VCB = Victim Compensation Board; OES = Office of Emergency Services; POST = Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training; BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections; CalGRIP = California Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program; CalWRAP = California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program; DOJ = Department of Justice; CHP = California Highway Patrol; DFW = Department of Fish and Wildlife; CDE = California Department of Education; and DOR = Department of Rehabilitation. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET governments in 2015-16. As Figure 6 shown in Figure 6, the state Majority of Fine and Fee Revenue Distributed to the State received $881 million (or 2015-16 roughly half) of all revenue distributed in 2015-16. Total: $1.7 Billion Of this amount, roughly 60 percent went to support State Trial Court Operations trial court operations and Counties construction. We estimate that local governments received State Trial Court Construction $707 million (or 42 percent) of the total amount of fine and fee revenue distributed in 2015-16. The remaining $114 million (or 7 percent) Cities went to collection programs Other State Programs Collection Programsa to cover their operational costs related to the collection a Split between courts (state government) and counties (local government) depending on who is actually collecting of delinquent debt. (A more the delinquent payments. This includes Franchise Tax Board collection costs and private vendor collection costs. detailed breakdown of deposits into specific state and local funds can be found in the Appendix on page 23). GOVERNOR’S BUDGET PROPOSES VARIOUS CHANGES The Governor’s 2017-18 budget includes three Proposed Changes to SPF specific proposals related to the state’s criminal fine and fee system. Specifically, the budget Impact of Decline in proposes: (1) changing how fine and fee revenues SPF Revenue on Program Expenditures are distributed from the SPF, (2) increasing the Decline in SPF Revenues. As discussed earlier, level of resources for the FTB Court-Ordered Debt fine and fee revenue deposited into the SPF is Program, and (3) repealing driver’s license holds allocated to nine different state special funds, which and suspensions as sanctions for FTP. then support various state and local programs (such www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 2017-18 BUDGET as local law enforcement). As shown in Figure 7, the 2016-17 on a one-time basis to backfill a projected amount of revenue deposited into the SPF peaked reduction in SPF revenues—$16.5 million to the in 2008-09 at about $170 million and has steadily Commission on Peace Officer Standards and declined since. (As we discuss below, in adopting Training (POST) and $3.1 million to the Standards the 2016-17 budget, the Legislature appropriated and Training for Corrections Program. Similarly, on a one-time basis General Fund monies to the 2016-17 budget also provided $4.2 million specific programs supported by SPF revenue to from the Restitution Fund on a one-time basis to essentially backfill the projected decline in fine and backfill SPF support for various victim programs fee revenue.) Total revenue deposited into the SPF administered by the Office of Emergency Service in 2017-18 is expected to be about $94 million—a (OES). decline of about 45 percent since 2008-09. 2017-18 SPF Program Expenditures Expected Current-Year SPF Program Expenditures. For to Decline Under Current System. As mentioned 2016-17, the administration estimates that a total of above, a total of $94 million is estimated to be $97 million from the SPF will be spent on specific deposited into the SPF in 2017-18. Of this amount, programs. It is also estimated that $209 million the administration estimates that $90.4 million from other funds sources (such as other state funds will be available to support various programs. and federal funds) will be spent on these programs, (After accounting for a few other relatively minor for a total of $306 million in current-year expenditures, the SPF is expected to retain a fund expenditures (as shown in Figure 8). We note that balance at the end of 2017-18 of $1.6 million.) the amount of other funds includes $19.6 million When combined with an estimated $174 million from the General Fund that was provided in in funding from other sources, we estimate that total expenditures on SPF-supported Figure 7 Revenues Deposited Into SPF Steadily Declining Since 2008-09 programs will be almost $265 million in (In Millions) the budget year under $180 the state’s current 160 distribution system 140 for SPF revenues. This is a decline of 120 about $41 million (or 100 13 percent) from the estimated 2016-17 80 level. While part 60 of this reduction 40 reflects a decline in revenues to SPF, a 20 majority of it is due to the expiration of 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 (Estimated)(Projected) the above one-time SPF = State Penalty Fund. backfills that were 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET provided in the current year. Figure 8 compares SPF revenues and the expiration of the various total program expenditures for 2016-17 and 2017-18 one-time offsets that were provided in the current under the current distribution system. As shown in year. However, the Governor proposes to allocate the figure, some of the programs would experience SPF revenues in a manner different than required spending reductions. For example, POST under current law, which, as we discuss below, expenditures would be reduced by a total of about results in different levels of reductions for certain $30 million. Under current law, programs would programs. Specifically, the Governor proposes to generally have the flexibility to take whatever steps eliminate existing statutory provisions that require they deem appropriate to implement expenditure the transfer of specified amounts of SPF revenue to reductions, such as laying off staff or halting certain the nine other state funds. Instead, the Governor’s activities. budget proposes to appropriate specific dollar amounts from the SPF directly to certain programs Governor’s Proposal based on the administration’s priorities. Proposes Alternative Expenditure Plan. Figure 9 (see next page) summarizes the The Governor proposes an alternative 2017-18 Governor’s proposed expenditure plan for 2017-18, expenditure plan for programs supported by the as compared to estimated 2016-17 expenditures. SPF that reflects both the projected reduction in As shown in the figure, the Governor proposes Figure 8 Estimated State Penalty Fund (SPF) Program Expenditures for 2016-17 and 2017-18 Under Current Distribution Systema (In Thousands) Change From 2016-17 2017-18 2016-17 Other Other Program SPF Fundsb Total SPF Funds Total Total Victim Compensation $15,114 $105,120 $120,234 $13,027 $107,283 $120,310 $76 Various OES Victim Programsc 12,494 63,403 75,897 11,884 57,929 69,813 -6,084 Peace Officers Standards and Training 32,132 30,734 62,866 28,784 3,787 32,571 -30,295 Standards and Training for Corrections 17,418 3,706 21,124 16,880 100 16,980 -4,144 CalGRIP 9,519 — 9,519 9,519 — 9,519 — CalWRAP 5,217 — 5,217 5,217 — 5,217 — Motorcyclist Safety 250 2,941 3,191 250 2,941 3,191 — DFW employee education and training 450 2,477 2,927 450 2,194 2,644 -283 Bus Driver Training 1,364 219 1,583 1,583 — 1,583 — Traumatic Brain Injury 998 64 1,062 953 161 1,114 52 Internet Crimes Against Children 1,008 — 1,008 1,008 — 1,008 — Local Public Prosecutors and 850 31 881 850 31 881 — Public Defenders Training Totals $96,814 $208,696 $305,510 $90,405 $174,427 $264,832 -$40,678 a Estimated expenditures based on current law, historical budgeting practices, and best available data. b Includes one-time funding to backfill reduction in SPF revenues—$19.6 million from the General Fund and $4.2 million from the Restitution Fund. c Includes Victim-Witness Assistance Program, Victim Information and Notification Everyday Program, Rape Crisis Program, Homeless Youth and Exploitation Program, and Child Sex Abuse Treatment Program. OES = Office of Emergency Services; CalGRIP = California Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program; CalWRAP = California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program; and DFW = Department of Fish and Wildlife. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 2017-18 BUDGET about $269 million in total expenditures for Governor proposes to eliminate SPF funding for programs supported by the SPF—$90.4 million the (1) California Gang Reduction, Intervention, from the SPF and $178.8 million from other funds. and Prevention Program; (2) Internet Crimes Programs would need to reduce total expenditures Against Children Taskforces; (3) Local Public by $36 million (or 12 percent) compared to the Prosecutors and Public Defenders Training 2016-17 level. (The estimated total level of spending Program; and (4) Motorcyclist Safety Program. The from other funds in 2017-18 under the Governor’s Governor proposes to maintain SPF funding for proposal is $4.4 million higher than estimated under the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s employee the current distribution system. This is primarily education and training programs at its current because the Governor proposes a larger reduction level. For the remaining programs, those that are in SPF resources for the Victim Compensation prioritized by the administration (such as training Program, which will likely be offset by an increase in for state and local law enforcement) would be expenditures from other funding sources.) required to address smaller expenditure reductions Some Programs Eliminated, Others Reduced than they otherwise would have been required to Differently Than Under Current System. Under under existing law. We also estimate that some of the Governor’s proposal, funding for certain these programs will increase expenditures from programs would be eliminated. Specifically, the other funds. Figure 9 State Penalty Fund (SPF) Program Expenditures for 2016-17 and 2017-18—Governor’s Proposal (In Thousands) Change From 2016-17a 2017-18 (Proposed) 2016-17 Other Other Program SPF Fundsb Total SPF Funds Total Total Victim Compensation $15,114 $105,120 $120,234 $9,082 $111,228 $120,310 $76 Various OES Victim Programsc 12,494 63,403 75,897 12,053 57,929 69,982 -5,915 Peace Officers Standards and Training 32,132 30,734 62,866 46,496 3,787 50,283 -12,583 Standards and Training for Corrections 17,418 3,706 21,124 17,209 100 17,309 -3,815 CalGRIP 9,519 — 9,519 — — — -9,519 CalWRAP 5,217 — 5,217 3,277 — 3,277 -1,940 Motorcyclist Safety 250 2,941 3,191 — 3,191 3,191 — DFW employee education and training 450 2,477 2,927 450 2,194 2,644 -283 Bus Driver Training 1,364 219 1,583 1,038 100 1,138 -445 Traumatic Brain Injury 998 64 1,062 800 314 1,114 52 Internet Crimes Against Children 1,008 — 1,008 — — — -1,008 Local Public Prosecutors and 850 31 881 — — — -881 Public Defenders Training Totals $96,814 $208,696 $305,510 $90,405 $178,844 $269,249 -$36,261 a Estimated expenditures based on current law, historical budgeting practices, and best available data. b Includes one-time funding to backfill reduction in SPF revenues—$19.6 million from the General Fund and $4.2 million from the Restitution Fund. c Includes Victim-Witness Assistance Program, Victim Information and Notification Everyday Program, Rape Crisis Program, Homeless Youth and Exploitation Program, and Child Sex Abuse Treatment Program. OES = Office of Emergency Services; CalGRIP = California Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program; CalWRAP = California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program; and DFW = Department of Fish and Wildlife. 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET LAO Assessment with legislative priorities. For example, it is unclear the extent to which law enforcement officers may Helps Increase State Control Over Use of Fine no longer be in full compliance with training and Fee Revenue . . . Our January 2016 report, requirements due to reduced revenues to POST Improving California’s Criminal Fine and Fee or the Standards and Training for Corrections System, identified a number of key problems with program. Accordingly, the programmatic impact of the state’s existing fine and fee system. One key the proposed reduction is unknown. weakness was that it is difficult for the Legislature Proposal Does Not Include Plan if SPF to control the use of fine and fee revenue due to Revenues Are Lower Than Estimated. The the various statutory formulas dictating how such Governor’s budget includes an expenditure plan revenue must be allocated. The Governor’s proposal to allocate $90.4 million from the SPF, leaving to eliminate the statutory formulas allocating SPF a $1.6 million fund balance. As mentioned revenue is a step in the right direction towards previously, revenue deposited into the SPF can helping address this weakness by increasing state fluctuate significantly from year to year. To the control over the use of SPF revenue. Eliminating extent revenues are lower than expected in a given the formulas allows the state to more easily year, existing state law dictates how the reductions reprioritize the use of funding to those programs will be allocated among programs. In contrast, the that are deemed to be of higher priority. For Governor’s proposal does not include a plan on how example, state and local law enforcement training a decline in estimated SPF revenue of more than programs would have been required to reduce $1.6 million would be accommodated. Without expenditures the most under existing state law. such a plan, the Legislature could be in a position However, the Governor’s proposal prioritizes these to have to make midyear funding adjustments. programs and ensures expenditure reductions Legislature May Have Different Priorities. are minimized—such as by eliminating support While the Governor’s proposal reflects the for four other programs entirely and distributing administration’s funding priorities, it is likely reductions across more programs. Taking this that the Legislature has different priorities. The targeted approach is particularly important as the Legislature could decide that different programs amount of fine and fee revenue deposited into the should be eliminated or that programs should SPF can fluctuate depending on factors outside of implement different levels of expenditure the Legislature’s control—such as the number of reductions. For example, the Legislature could citations issued by law enforcement, individual’s decide that victim programs are of greatest priority willingness to make payments, and the amount and should then implement fewer expenditure collected by collection programs. reductions than proposed by the Governor. . . . But Unclear What Impact Proposed In addition, the Legislature may be concerned Reductions Will Have. The administration’s that choices made by departments to reduce proposal, however, does not specify how the expenditures may not be consistent with its programs would accommodate the proposed priorities. For example, the Legislature may want funding reductions. Rather, the budget reflects to ensure that departments maintain expenditures unallocated reductions to specific programs and on prioritized activities, like certain types of law gives the programs maximum flexibility to take enforcement training. whatever steps they deem appropriate to implement the reductions, which may or may not be aligned www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 2017-18 BUDGET LAO Recommendations each administering department to report in budget hearings on how it would implement expenditure Modify Governor’s Proposal to Reflect reductions and what impact such reductions would Legislative Priorities. As discussed above, the have upon program operations under the current Governor’s proposal to increase legislative oversight distribution system, as well as under the Governor’s over SPF revenue is a step in the right direction. proposal. Such information would help the However, to address our concerns with the Legislature determine the appropriate funding level Governor’s proposal, we recommend the Legislature for each program and ensure that each department modify the Governor’s proposal to reflect its plans to implement any expenditure reductions in a priorities. For example, the Legislature may want manner that is consistent with legislative priorities. to target reductions at specific programs in a Additionally, we recommend that the Legislature manner different than proposed by the Governor. direct departments to assess whether alternative Additionally, we recommend the Legislature direct fund sources are available to support program programs to take specific actions in implementing operations. For example, OES received a substantial the expenditure reductions—rather than giving increase in federal funds to support crime victim departments complete discretion—in order to assistance programs beginning in 2015, with ensure that legislative priorities are maintained. millions of dollars of these funds subsequently For example, with respect to the California allocated to the Victim-Witness Assistance Department of Education (CDE) Bus Driver Program and the Rape Crisis Program. With an Training Program, the Legislature could direct expected increase in such federal funding in the the department to reduce specific expenditures coming year, it is possible that these programs (such as no longer providing lodging for program require less SPF revenues—thereby increasing the participants) or to operate the program more amount available to support other programs. cost-effectively (such as by increasing class size). Alternatively, Deposit Most Criminal Fine Alternatively, the Legislature could direct programs and Fee Revenue in State General Fund. While to look for alternative funding sources to maintain the Governor’s proposal to change the allocation of expenditures. For example, CDE currently charges SPF revenues would be a step in the right direction a $1,000 fee for its training program (as well as fees in improving the state’s fine and fee system, we for various other services) that generates roughly continue to believe that taking a much broader $100,000 annually. This fee has not changed approach to changing the overall distribution since 2008 and could potentially be increased to of fine and fee revenue would be preferable. As generate additional revenue to offset the proposed discussed in our January 2016 report, we find reduction. Finally, the Legislature could specify a that eliminating all statutory formulas related plan to the extent SPF revenues are lower in 2017-18 to fines and fees would give the state maximum than projected. For example, the Legislature could control over fine and fee revenue. Accordingly, we approve an expenditure plan that ranks programs recommend the Legislature require that nearly all in priority order. To the extent revenues are lower fine and fee revenue, excluding those subject to than expected, lower priority programs would certain legal restrictions (such as monies collected be required to implement additional expenditure for violations of state law protecting fish and reductions. game), be deposited into the General Fund for To assist the Legislature in determining its subsequent appropriation by the Legislature in SPF funding priorities, we recommend directing 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET the annual state budget. Depositing all fine and faces potential insolvency.) In addition, other fee revenue in the General Fund would allow the funds could be in a similar situation in the future Legislature to maximize its control over the use of if collections of criminal fine and fee revenue these monies and to ensure that annual funding for continue to decline. Instead, the Legislature state and local programs is based on workload and could focus on ensuring that programs provide legislative priorities. Moreover, an annual review legislatively desired service levels. However, of programmatic funding levels would facilitate because these programs would now be supported periodic reviews of programs to help ensure that by the General Fund, decisions about General they are operating effectively and efficiently. In Fund expenditures would be more difficult as the addition, any fluctuations in the collection of fine Legislature would need to weigh funding for these and fee revenue would no longer disproportionately programs against all other programs currently impact programs supported by fines and fees. supported by the General Fund. Instead, fluctuations in revenue would be addressed Proposed Increase in at a statewide level across other state programs— Resources for FTB Court- ensuring that adjustments in funding levels were Ordered Debt Program based on statewide legislative priorities. Depositing all fine and fee revenue into the Governor’s Proposal General Fund would eliminate the need for the Legislature to continuously identify and implement As discussed previously, collection programs short-term solutions to address problems can contract with the FTB’s Court-Ordered Debt with various special funds currently facing or Collection Program. State law authorizes FTB to nearing structural shortfalls or insolvency. These retain up to 15 percent of the collection revenue funds include the Trial Court Trust Fund, the to cover administrative costs for operating the Improvement and Modernization Fund, the program, with such revenue being deposited in the State Court Facilities Construction Account, the Court Collection Account. The Governor’s budget Restitution Fund, and the DNA Identification for 2017-18 proposes a $1.1 million augmentation Fund. (In the nearby box, we provide an example from the Court Collection Account for the FTB’s of one fund—the DNA Identification Fund—that Court-Ordered Debt Collection Program. In DNA Identification Fund Facing Solvency Concerns The DNA Identification Fund, which primarily supports the Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Forensic Services, has been structurally imbalanced since 2010-11 and would likely be facing insolvency in the current year absent planned expenditure reductions. In 2015-16, DOJ spent $70 million from the fund to support forensic activities. The 2016-17 budget anticipated similar levels of expenditures. However, the administration currently estimates that the fund will only be able to support $62 million in expenditures in 2016-17. The 2017-18 budget estimates a further decline to $59 million in 2017-18. This will require DOJ to immediately absorb at least $11 million in reductions in the current and budget year. Such a significant reduction will likely impact DOJ’s ability to process evidence in a timely manner, potentially resulting in significant backlogs. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 2017-18 BUDGET prior years, FTB hired seven temporary positions FTB collection efforts. However, as discussed to address an increase in workload. A portion previously, FTB plays a small part in the overall of this funding would be used to support the debt collection process. As a result, the Governor’s conversion of these seven existing temporary proposal does not address more fundamental positions to permanent positions to maintain weaknesses in the existing collection system. We the program’s existing service levels. (In 2015-16, identified a number of such weaknesses in our the program collected nearly $109 million and November 2014 report, Restructuring the Court- spent $11.4 million to support 40 positions.) The Ordered Debt Collection Process. Such weaknesses remainder of this funding would be provided include: on a three year, limited term basis to support • Lack of Clear Fiscal Incentives for 11 positions to eliminate a one-time backlog Cost-Effective Collections. Currently, that accumulated before the seven temporary there is little fiscal incentive for courts and positions were hired. FTB estimates that the counties to collect debt in a cost-effective requested limited-term positions would generate an manner or to maximize the amount additional $20 million over three years. collected. For example, collection programs are allowed to recover their operational LAO Assessment costs related to delinquent collections Governor’s Proposal Merits Consideration . . . regardless of how high those costs are The Governor’s proposal for converting temporary or how much debt is actually collected. positions to permanent positions merits This provides little incentive to operate consideration. These temporary staff were first efficiently. Additionally, programs have hired to help FTB process workload from more little incentive to collect debt before it has courts and counties choosing to participate in the become delinquent, when it is cheaper to Court-Ordered Debt Program. This additional collect, because the programs are only workload still exists. Additionally, the department permitted to recover their costs related to reports that the temporary nature of these positions pursuing delinquent debt. It is much more has resulted in a high attrition rate. This is difficult and expensive to collect the debt problematic because new staff require a significant after it becomes delinquent. amount of time to train before they become proficient at collecting. Accordingly, by making the • Difficult to Comprehensively Evaluate positions permanent, the program would be able to Performance of Collection Programs. It is maintain or increase collections. The proposal for difficult to comprehensively evaluate the limited-term positions also merits consideration. performance of collection programs due Addressing the backlog would likely result in the to incomplete and inconsistent reporting collection of more revenue as well as help insure of total collections and distributions. For individuals comply with the court’s order to pay a example, collection programs are not specified amount as punishment for violating state required to report on collection activities law. of debt that has not become delinquent, . . . However, Does Not Address Overall resulting in a lack statewide information Weaknesses in the Existing Collection System. The on such activities. This information is Governor’s proposal focuses solely on improving important because these activities can 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET directly affect the cost and success of with greater flexibility in how and when collecting delinquent debt. Thus, this they collect debt and rewards them for information is needed to evaluate the collecting cost-effectively or increasing overall success of collection programs. the total amount collected. Specifically, Additionally, there is a lack of performance each program would be able to retain measures to evaluate how cost-effectively their actual costs of collecting—up to collection programs pursue debt. the amount they received for collecting delinquent debt in a fixed base year. Once • Lack of Data on Collectability of a program collects the same amount of Outstanding Debt. Currently, there is total debt (both delinquent and debt that a lack of data on the collectability of has not become delinquent), the program outstanding debt. Limited analysis has would be able to retain a set percentage of been conducted to determine what portion the amount of new revenue it collected for of the outstanding debt is collectable in a its own purposes. Because of the current cost-effective manner. Without such an lack of data on collections, we propose a analysis, it is unknown what portion of the three-year pilot program to test the new total balance collection programs should incentive model prior to implementing it actively pursue. statewide. LAO Recommendations • Requiring Improved Reporting on Collections. We recommend the Approve Governor’s Proposal. We recommend Legislature make Judicial Council the Legislature approve the Governor’s proposal to responsible for complete reporting on provide $1.1 million to support the conversion of collections, including reporting on 7 temporary positions to permanent positions and collections of debt before it becomes to support 11 three-year, limited-term positions for delinquent. We also recommend Judicial FTB’s Court-Ordered Debt Program. The requested Council implement performance measures positions would help maintain, and potentially that allow for the accurate assessment of improve, the ability of the program to collect each collection program’s effectiveness. criminal fines and fees in a cost-effective manner. This would enable the comparison of the It would also help ensure that court orders to pay performance of collection programs across fines and fees are adequately enforced. the state. Make Improvements to Overall Collection Process. We made a number of recommendations • Conducting a Collectability Analysis. in our November 2014 report, Restructuring We recommend Judicial Council work the Court-Ordered Debt Collection Process, to with collection programs to conduct an comprehensively improve the existing collection analysis to determine the collectability process, including: of outstanding fines and fees. This • Implementing New Incentive Structure analysis could provide a more accurate for Collections. We recommend the understanding of how much of this Legislature implement a new incentive outstanding balance could potentially be structure that provides collection programs collected and at what cost. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 2017-18 BUDGET Proposed Repeal of who fail to pay, it could negatively impact the Driver’s License Holds and ability of collection programs to collect fines and Suspensions for FTP fees. This is of concern because this debt was levied by the courts as punishment for violating Governor’s Proposal criminal offenses. Thus, collection programs effectively enforce court orders through their As discussed earlier, courts can place a hold on collection activities. The proposed repeal would an individual’s driver’s license for FTA or FTP or likely make collection programs less effective as notify DMV to suspend the license immediately for agencies would have one less tool at their disposal. FTA or FTP. The Governor proposes budget trailer While no data has been collected that would allow legislation to eliminate collection programs’ ability a precise estimate of the magnitude of the impact, to use driver’s license holds and suspensions as a collection entities report that they routinely sanction for an individual’s FTP. Driver’s license interact with individuals seeking to make payments holds and suspensions would still be available for in order to have their driver’s license reinstated. FTA. Additionally, while a comprehensive statewide LAO Assessment evaluation of the effectiveness of driver’s license holds and suspensions has not been conducted, Repeal Could Provide Relief to Individuals the experiences of specific collection programs Who Fail to Pay. Eliminating the ability of courts suggests that the repeal could potentially reduce to use driver’s license holds and suspensions total statewide collections by the tens of millions of as a collection sanction would provide relief to dollars annually. For example, several trial courts individuals who fail to pay. For many individuals, that recently stopped using driver’s license holds driving is a basic necessity as it allows individuals each reported a decline in revenue in the millions to commute to work, pick up children from school, of dollars. and conduct other daily business. Thus, many Raises Larger Questions About Appropriate continue to drive even if they lack a valid driver’s Sanctions for FTP. The Governor’s proposal license. This can result in additional fines and implies that driver’s license holds and suspensions fees being assessed—significantly increasing the are inappropriate consequences or sanctions for total amount owed by an individual. For example, failing to pay fines and fees. On the one hand, this individuals who cannot afford to pay their debt may be true for certain individuals—such as those in full to lift a suspension could be subject to: a who are generally careful drivers who simply lack misdemeanor violation for driving on a suspended sufficient means to pay their debt or whose offense license, the impounding of their vehicle, and an has no connection to driving. For these individuals, increase in their insurance rate. This can make it the suspension may be inappropriate as it is too very difficult for an individual with modest means severe of a consequence for a minor infraction or to fully address their debt. Under the Governor’s has no relation to whether or not they should be proposal, individuals with FTP would no longer be allowed to drive. However, this may not be true in subject to such additional penalties as their license all FTP cases. For example, holds and suspensions would no longer be held or suspended. could be appropriate consequences for individuals Repeal Could Negatively Impact Collections. who deliberately choose not to pay their debt even While the repeal would provide relief to individuals though they have sufficient means or for individuals 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET who frequently violate traffic laws. Thus, the Direct Judicial Council to Conduct a Governor’s proposal raises larger questions about Comprehensive Evaluation of Collection Best what consequences are appropriate punishments for Practices and Sanctions. While state law and the failing to pay fines and fees imposed by the state as Judicial Council specify a series of collection best punishment for violating law. practices and sanctions (which includes the use of driver’s license holds and suspensions), there has LAO Recommendations generally been a lack of evaluation to determine Weigh Trade-Offs of Potential Changes to whether these best practices and sanctions are Driver’s License Sanctions. In considering the cost-effective. In addition, collection programs have Governor’s proposal, the Legislature will want flexibility in deciding which best practices they to weigh the relative trade-offs in repealing the choose to implement and how they implement any driver’s license hold and suspension sanction of the practices they adopt. Without an evaluation for FTP. Such a repeal would provide relief to of these practices, it is difficult to determine individuals who fail to pay as they would no longer whether the specific ways in which individual face the consequences for driving on a suspended collection programs operate are cost-effective. license (such as having their vehicle impounded). Finally, a number of collection programs have also However, the repeal would also negatively impact identified and implemented additional local best the ability of collection programs to collect practices and sanctions. Without an evaluation, fines and fees, which in turn would increase the it is difficult to determine whether these practices magnitude of structural shortfalls or insolvencies or sanctions are cost-effective and should be faced by various state funds receiving such revenue implemented—or at least encouraged—statewide. absent any changes in how criminal fine and fee In view of the above, we recommend the revenue is distributed. Legislature direct Judicial Council to conduct Consider Alternatives to Governor’s Proposal. a comprehensive evaluation of collection best The Legislature could consider alternatives to the practices and sanctions—including driver’s license Governor’s proposal. For example, the Legislature holds and suspensions—currently used across the could consider modifying the Governor’s proposal state, as well as those utilized by specific programs to provide some relief to individuals who fail to locally. The results of such an evaluation would help pay, while still preserving driver’s license holds determine which currently employed best practices, and suspensions as a collection sanction. Such a methods of implementation, or sanctions are most modification could take many forms. One option cost-effective, as well as under what circumstance is to change state law to allow for FTP holds to such practices would be cost-effective. Such be removed and applied at the court’s discretion information would help the Legislature as it similar to FTA holds. This would encourage considers future changes to collection best practices collection programs to remove the hold before the and sanctions. individual pays the debt in full. Similar to FTA, Reevaluate Structure of Criminal Fine and the hold would then become a tool to encourage Fee System. As discussed above, the Governor’s individuals to contact the court. Other options proposal raises larger questions about appropriate include permitting holds but not suspensions or sanctions for failing to pay fines and fees. However, increasing the number of holds that must be placed this issue is only one piece of the overall criminal before a license can be suspended. fine and fee system. The state’s current system www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 2017-18 BUDGET has evolved from statutes passed over the course individual’s ability to pay. Another option of numerous years. In order to ensure that the is to levy the same level of fines and fees system effectively meets current legislative goals on all offenders who commit the same and priorities, we recommend that the Legislature violation, but implement alternative reevaluate the overall structure of the criminal methods for addressing the debt (such as fine and fee system. As part of this evaluation, through community service). we recommend the Legislature consider four key • What Should Be the Consequences for questions—including the question of appropriate Failing to Pay? The Legislature will want sanctions—to guide any subsequent changes to the to consider what consequence individuals state’s fine and fee system. (Please see our January should face when they fail to pay their 2016 report, Improving California’s Criminal Fine fines and fees. The Legislature could also and Fee System, for more detail on these questions.) take action to help prevent individuals • What Should Be the Goals of the Criminal from becoming delinquent—such as by Fine and Fee System? A fine and fee authorizing programs to offer a discount system can serve various purposes, such if offenders pay their debt in full. The as deterring behavior or mitigating the comprehensive evaluation on collection negative effects of crime. Some goals are best practices and sanctions recommended not mutually exclusive, while others cannot above could be helpful in answering this be fully accomplished together. As such, question. the Legislature may need to determine which of its goals it values most when • Should Fines and Fees Be Adjusted? Once assessing the state’s fine and fee system. the Legislature sets the appropriate fine Ultimately, the Legislature should set fines level for criminal offenses, the Legislature and fees to reflect these goals. will want to decide whether and how such fines are adjusted in the future. For • Should Ability to Pay Be Incorporated? example, the levels could be regularly To the extent the Legislature is interested reevaluated or automatically adjusted in incorporating ability to pay into (such as by using a statewide economic the criminal fine and fee system, there indicator). are various ways to do so. One way is to calculate fines and fees based on an 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov 2017-18 BUDGET APPENDIX Summary of Fine and Fee Revenue Deposits in State and Local Fundsa (In Millions) 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 State Administered Funds (Non-Judicial Branch) State Penalty Fundb $138.4 $130.5 $124.4 $120.9 $105.7 General Fund 75.0 69.1 73.0 65.5 60.3 DNA Identification Fund 53.9 62.8 67.9 68.2 59.7 Motor Vehicle Account 42.3 48.3 53.5 57.0 68.3 Restitution Fund 56.4 54.9 52.7 56.8 38.6 EMAT Act Fund 11.7 10.2 10.2 8.5 7.7 Fish and Game Preservation Fund 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 Other Funds 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.2 Totals $379.3 $377.4 $383.3 $378.9 $342.1 State Administered Funds (Judicial Branch) Trial Court Trust Fund $310.6 $302.2 $302.1 $302.6 $259.1 Immediate and Critical Needs Account 241.5 224.4 217.5 207.6 177.5 State Court Facilities Construction Fund 84.3 76.5 74.0 71.5 61.4 Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund 61.8 58.3 48.2 41.1 38.7 Court Facilities Trust Fund 1.7 5.7 2.3 2.2 1.9 Totals $700.1 $667.2 $644.1 $625.0 $538.6 Local Government Administered Funds (County) General Fund $431.7 $415.5 $415.9 $394.0 $367.2 Maddy EMS Fund 85.0 81.0 86.1 84.2 72.1 Criminal Justice Facilities Fund 71.7 65.3 52.1 49.5 43.8 Courthouse Construction Fund 43.1 40.5 39.0 37.9 33.9 DNA Identification Fund 28.9 28.0 27.5 26.5 22.6 Alcohol and Drug Related Special Funds (various) 12.6 12.2 11.3 11.0 10.4 Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund and Digital Image 9.3 8.3 8.1 7.7 6.4 Photographic Suspect Identification Fund Laboratory Special Funds (various) 7.5 7.2 6.8 7.0 7.1 Other Funds 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.1 10.2 Totals $700.0 $668.0 $656.8 $627.9 $573.6 Local Government Administered Funds (City) General Fund $178.1 $170.7 $165.4 $153.4 $133.1 Totals $178.1 $170.7 $165.4 $153.4 $133.1 Collection Programs Operating Costs $120.2 $114.5 $113.6 $116.2 $114.2 Totals $120.2 $114.5 $113.6 $116.2 $114.2 Total Amount Distributed $2,077.6 $1,997.8 $1,963.2 $1,901.4 $1,701.5 a Due to certain data limitations, these numbers reflect our best estimates of the amount of fine and fee revenue distributed to state and local funds. Actual amounts could be higher or lower. b State Penalty Fund revenues are allocated to nine other state funds (such as the Peace Officers’ Training Fund and the Restitution Fund) with each receiving a certain percentage specified in state law. EMAT = Emergency Medical Air Transportation and EMS = Emergency Medical Services. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 2017-18 BUDGET LAO Publications This report was prepared by Anita Lee and reviewed by Drew Soderborg. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov