(1) Existing law authorizes investigators and representatives of the Medical Board of California, among others, to inquire into any alleged violation of the Medical Practice Act or any other federal or state law, regulation, or rule relevant to the practice of medicine or podiatric medicine, and to inspect documents relevant to those investigations, including the inspection and copying of any document relevant to an investigation where patient consent is given. Existing law requires specified persons, including the administrator of a peer review body, to file a report with the board within 15 days after the effective date of any specified action taken against a licensee for a medical disciplinary cause or reason. Existing law also requires a coroner to make a report to the board, among other specified entities, when he or she receives information that indicates that a death may be the result of a physician and surgeon's, podiatrist's, or physician assistant's gross negligence or incompetence. This bill would authorize the board, in any investigation that involves the death of a patient, to inspect and copy the medical records of the deceased patient without the authorization of the beneficiary or personal representative of the deceased patient or a court order solely to determine the extent to which the death was the result of the physician and surgeon's violation of the Medical Practice Act, if the board provides a written request to the physician and surgeon that includes a declaration that the board has been unsuccessful in locating or contacting the deceased patient's beneficiary or personal representative after reasonable efforts. (2) Existing law requires the board to take action against any licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct is defined for this purpose to include, among other things, the repeated failure by a licensee who is the subject of a board investigation, in the absence of good cause, to attend and participate in an interview scheduled by the mutual agreement of the licensee and the board. This bill would revise that definition of unprofessional conduct to include the repeated failure by a licensee who is the subject of a board investigation, in the absence of good cause, to attend and participate in an interview by the board. (3) Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, authorizes the administrative law judge of the Medical Quality Hearing Panel to issue an interim order suspending a license, or imposing drug testing, continuing education, supervision of procedures, or other licensee restrictions. This bill would further authorize the administrative law judge to issue an interim order limiting the authority to prescribe, furnish, administer, or dispense controlled substances.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law classifies certain controlled substances into designated schedules. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) for the electronic monitoring of the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule II, Schedule III, and Schedule IV controlled substances by all practitioners authorized to prescribe or dispense these controlled substances. Existing law requires dispensing pharmacies and clinics to report, on a weekly basis, specified information for each prescription of Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV controlled substances, to the department, as specified. This bill would establish the CURES Fund within the State Treasury to receive funds to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the Department of Justice for the purposes of funding CURES, and would make related findings and declarations. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2014, require an annual fee of $6 to be assessed on specified licensees, including licensees authorized to prescribe, order, administer, furnish, or dispense controlled substances, and require the regulating agency of each of those licensees to bill and collect that fee at the time of license renewal. The bill would authorize the Department of Consumer Affairs to reduce, by regulation, that fee to the reasonable cost of operating and maintaining CURES for the purpose of regulating those licensees, if the reasonable regulatory cost is less than $6 per licensee. The bill would require the proceeds of the fee to be deposited into the CURES Fund for the support of CURES, as specified. The bill would also permit specified insurers, health care service plans, qualified manufacturers, and other donors to voluntarily contribute to the CURES Fund, as described. (2) Existing law requires the Medical Board of California to periodically develop and disseminate information and educational materials regarding various subjects, including pain management techniques, to each licensed physician and surgeon and to each general acute care hospital in California. This bill would additionally require the board to periodically develop and disseminate to each licensed physician and surgeon and to each general acute care hospital in California information and educational materials relating to the assessment of a patient's risk of abusing or diverting controlled substances and information relating to CURES. (3) Existing law permits a licensed health care practitioner, as specified, or a pharmacist to apply to the Department of Justice to obtain approval to access information stored on the Internet regarding the controlled substance history of a patient under his or her care. Existing law also authorizes the Department of Justice to provide the history of controlled substances dispensed to an individual to licensed health care practitioners, pharmacists, or both, providing care or services to the individual. This bill would require, by January 1, 2016, or upon receipt of a federal Drug Enforcement Administration registration, whichever occurs later, health care practitioners authorized to prescribe, order, administer, furnish, or dispense controlled substances, as specified, and pharmacists to apply to the Department of Justice to obtain approval to access information stored on the Internet regarding the controlled substance history of a patient under their care. The bill would require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Department of Consumer Affairs and certain licensing boards, to, among other things, develop a streamlined application and approval process to provide access to the CURES database for licensed health care practitioners and pharmacists. The bill would make other related and conforming changes.
(1) The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 requires a party bringing an action or proceeding alleging that a lead agency's approval of a project certified by the Governor as an environmental leadership development project is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act to file the action or proceeding with the Court of Appeal with geographic jurisdiction over the project and requires the Court of Appeal to issue its decision within 175 days of the filing of the petition. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 requires the lead agency to concurrently prepare the record of proceeding for the leadership project with the review and consideration of the project. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 provides that the above provision does not apply to a project for which a lead agency fails to certify an environmental impact report on or before June 1, 2014. The Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 is repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2015. This bill would instead require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2014, to adopt a rule of court to establish procedures applicable to actions or proceedings seeking judicial review of a public agency's action in certifying the environmental impact report and in granting project approval that requires the actions or proceedings, including any appeals therefrom, be resolved, within 270 days of the certification of the record of proceedings. The bill would extend the operation of the judicial review procedures unless the lead agency fails to certify an environmental impact report for an environmental leadership project on or before January 1, 2016. The bill would provide that the above provisions do not apply to a project if the Governor does not certify the project as an environmental leadership development project prior to January 1, 2016. Because this bill would extend the time period for which a lead agency would be required to concurrently prepare the record of proceeding with the review and consideration of the environmental leadership development projects, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the lead agency, within 10 days of the Governor's certification, to issue, at the applicant's expense, a specified public notice, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 on January 1, 2017. (2) The California Environmental Quality Act, commonly known as CEQA, requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA establishes a procedure by which a person may seek judicial review of the decision of the lead agency made pursuant to CEQA. This bill would provide that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, as defined, on an infill site, as defined, within a transit priority area, as defined, shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. The bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and submit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, and the secretary to certify and adopt, revisions to the guidelines for the implementation of CEQA establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. This bill would, except for specified circumstances, exempt from CEQA residential, employment center, and mixed-use development projects meeting specified criteria. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the public agency, in certifying the environmental impact report and in granting approvals for a specified entertainment and sports center project located in the City of Sacramento, including the concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings and the certification of the record of proceeding within 5 days of the filing of a specified notice, to comply with specified procedures. Because a public agency would be required to comply with those new procedures, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2014, to adopt a rule of court to establish procedures applicable to actions or proceedings seeking judicial review of a public agency's action in certifying the environmental impact report and in granting project approval that requires the actions or proceedings, including any appeals therefrom, be resolved, to the extent feasible, within 270 days of the certification of the record of proceedings. The bill would provide that the above provisions are inoperative and repealed on January 1 of the following year if the applicant fails to notify the lead agency before the release of the draft environmental impact report for public comment that the applicant is electing to proceed pursuant to the above provisions. (3) Existing law requires the development, adoption, and updating of a congestion management program for each county that includes an urbanized area, as defined. The plan is required to contain specified elements and to be submitted to regional agencies, as defined, for determination of whether the program is consistent with regional transportation plans. The regional agency is then directed to monitor the implementation of all elements of each congestion management program. The required elements include traffic level of service standards for a system of designated highways and roadways. Existing law defines "infill opportunity zone" for purposes of the above-described provisions and exempts streets and highways in an infill opportunity zone from the level of service standards specified in the above-described provisions and instead requires alternate level of service standards to be applied. Existing law prohibits a city or county from designating an infill opportunity zone after December 31, 2009. This bill would revise the definition of "infill opportunity zone," as specified. The bill would authorize the designation of an infill opportunity zone that is a transit priority area within a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy adopted by an applicable metropolitan planning organization. (4) Existing law terminates the designation of an infill opportunity zone if no development project is completed within that zone within 4 years from the date of the designation. This bill would repeal this provision. This bill would make findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Sacramento. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires that, on and after January 1, 2008, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $8.00 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after July 1, 2014, to not less than $9 per hour. The bill would further increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $10 per hour.
(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2015, imposes on an insurer a $0.30 special purpose assessment on each vehicle insured under an insurance policy issued in this state by the insurer. Existing law specifies that $0.20 of each $0.30 special purpose assessment shall be used to fund specified consumer service functions of the Department of Insurance relating to motor vehicle insurance. Existing law further specifies that the remaining $0.10 of each $0.30 special purpose assessment shall be used to fund the improvement of certain consumer functions of the department. This bill would revise and recast those provisions, delete the date of repeal, and require a special purpose assessment of $0.25, commencing July 1, 2014, and until January 1, 2016, and not exceeding $0.25 thereafter, on each vehicle insured under an insurance policy issued in this state by the insurer. The bill would also specify that, upon appropriation, 23 of the special purpose assessment be used for the purpose of funding the consumer service functions of the department related to regulating automobile insurers, as provided, and 13 of the special purpose assessment be used for the purpose of improving consumer functions of the department, related to regulating automobile insurers, as specified. The bill would authorize the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to use up to $0.05 of the $0.25 special purpose assessment revenues collected to notify insurers and other members of the public about the existence of any low-cost automobile insurance program. (2) Existing law provides that each insurer doing business in this state shall pay an annual special purpose assessment to be determined by the Insurance Commissioner, but not to exceed $0.50 annually for each vehicle insured under an insurance policy the insurer issues in this state, in order to fund the Fraud Division and the Organized Automobile Fraud Activity Interdiction Program. Under existing law, of the funds collected, 42.5% are required to be distributed to district attorneys, 42.5% are required to be distributed to the department's Fraud Division, and 15% are required to be distributed to the Department of the California Highway Patrol, to be used as provided. Existing law provides that this assessment be repealed on January 1, 2015. This bill would revise and recast those provisions, delete the date of repeal, and make the distribution of funds by the commissioner upon appropriation by the Legislature. (3) Existing law creates the Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund as a special account within the Insurance Fund, and, until January 1, 2015, requires each insurer admitted to transact insurance in this state to pay a fee determined by the commissioner, not to exceed $1, for each individual life insurance policy and each individual annuity product that it issues to a resident of this state with a value of $15,000 or more. If an insurer elects to charge the purchaser of a life insurance policy or annuity product this fee, the fee is required to be set forth as a separate charge in the contract schedule or premium notice. The moneys in the Life and Annuity Consumer Protection Fund are to be distributed, as provided, and are required to be used exclusively for the purpose of protecting consumers of life insurance and annuity products in this state. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys in the fund be distributed within the department for functions related to individual life insurance and annuity products, including, but not limited to, educating consumers in all aspects of life insurance and annuity products, consumer protection, purchasing and using insurance and annuity products, claim filing, benefit delivery, and dispute resolution. This bill would revise and recast those provisions, delete the date of repeal, and require that the moneys distributed by the commissioner, upon appropriation by the Legislature, fund the reasonable costs incurred in regulating entities transacting life insurance and annuity products in this state. The bill would delete the requirement that each individual life insurance policy and each individual annuity product have a value of $15,000 or more in order for the special assessment to apply. The bill would also require that instead of consumer education, the moneys in the fund distributed within the department for functions related to individual life insurance and annuity products be used to disseminate information to insurers, insureds, and others regarding the applicable regulation of life insurance and annuity products, including consumer protection, purchasing and using insurance and annuity products, claim filing, benefit delivery, and dispute resolution. (4) Existing law requires the Insurance Commissioner to, on or before the first day of August in each year, make a report to the Governor, the Legislature, and to the committees of the Senate and Assembly having jurisdiction over insurance containing specified information, including the condition of the insurance business and interests in this state. This bill would additionally require the annual report to contain information pertaining to consumer complaints, investigations, administrative and regulatory cases pertaining to automobile insurance, and revenue and expenditures relating to automobile insurance policy assessments, as specified.
Existing law requires an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service to make its privacy policy available to consumers, as specified. Existing federal law requires an operator of an Internet Web site or online service directed to a child, as defined, or an operator of an Internet Web site or online service that has actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child to provide notice of what information is being collected and how that information is being used, and to give the parents of the child the opportunity to refuse to permit the operator's further collection of information from the child. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2015, prohibit an operator of an Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application, as specified, from marketing or advertising specified types of products or services to a minor. The bill would prohibit an operator from knowingly using, disclosing, compiling, or allowing a 3rd party to use, disclose, or compile, the personal information of a minor for the purpose of marketing or advertising specified types of products or services. The bill would also make this prohibition applicable to an advertising service that is notified by an operator of an Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application that the site, service, or application is directed to a minor. The bill would, on and after January 1, 2015, require the operator of an Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application to permit a minor, who is a registered user of the operator's Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application, to remove, or to request and obtain removal of, content or information posted on the operator's Internet Web site, service, or application by the minor, unless the content or information was posted by a 3rd party, any other provision of state or federal law requires the operator or 3rd party to maintain the content or information, or the operator anonymizes the content or information. The bill would require the operator to provide notice to a minor that the minor may remove the content or information, as specified.
The California Constitution provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business. The California Constitution requires that the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies be open to public scrutiny. The California Constitution requires that whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, the state shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government for the costs of the program or increased level of service. The California Constitution exempts certain mandates from the requirement to provide a subvention of funds including local agency compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) . The California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. The Brown Act requires each legislative body of a local agency to provide notice of the time and place for holding regular meetings and requires that all meetings of a legislative body be open and public. Under the act, all persons are permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, unless a closed session is authorized. This measure would require each local agency to comply with the CPRA and the Brown Act, and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act which contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers the purposes of the people's right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business. The measure would specifically exempt mandates contained within the scope of those acts, and certain subsequent statutory enactments that contain findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers those same purposes, from the requirement to provide a subvention of funds.
Existing law provides that the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or the Board of Parole Hearings, or both, may, for specified reasons, recommend to the court that a prisoner's sentence be recalled, and that a court may recall a prisoner's sentence. When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of a crime has served at least 15 years of his or her sentence, existing law allows the defendant to submit a petition for recall and resentencing, and authorizes the court, in its discretion, to recall the sentence and to resentence the defendant, provided that the new sentence is not greater than the initial sentence. This bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing to consider release of offenders who committed specified crimes prior to being 18 years of age and who were sentenced to state prison. The bill would make a person eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing during the 15th year of incarceration if the person meeting these criteria received a determinate sentence, during the 20th year if the person received a sentence that was less than 25 years to life, and during the 25th year of incarceration if the person received a sentence that was 25 years to life. The bill would require the board, in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole, to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law. The bill would require that, in assessing growth and maturity, psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, if used by the board, be administered by licensed psychologists employed by the board and take into consideration the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual. The bill would permit family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations with knowledge about the young person prior to the crime or his or her growth and maturity since the commission of the crime to submit statements for review by the board. Existing law requires the board to meet with each inmate sentenced pursuant to certain provisions of law during his or her 3rd year of incarceration for the purpose of reviewing his or her file, making recommendations, and documenting activities and conduct pertinent to granting or withholding postconviction credit. This bill would instead require the board to meet with those inmates, including those who are eligible to be considered for parole pursuant to a youth offender parole hearing, during the 6th year prior to the inmate's minimum eligible parole release date. The bill would also require the board to provide an inmate additional, specified information during this consultation, including individualized recommendations regarding the inmate's work assignments, rehabilitative programs, and institutional behavior, and to provide those findings and recommendations, in writing, to the inmate within 30 days following the consultation. Existing law, added by Proposition 8, adopted June 8, 1982, and amended by Proposition 36, adopted November 6, 2012, commonly known as the Three Strikes law, requires increased penalties for certain recidivist offenders in addition to any other enhancement or penalty provisions that may apply, including individuals with current and prior convictions of a serious felony, as specified. Existing law, as amended by Proposition 83, adopted November 7, 2006, commonly known as Jessica's Law, requires a person convicted of certain felonies under specified circumstances to be committed to prison for a term of years to life. This bill would exempt from its provisions inmates who were sentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes law or Jessica's Law, or sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The bill would not apply to an individual to whom the bill would otherwise apply, but who, subsequent to attaining 18 years of age, commits an additional crime for which malice aforethought is a necessary element of the crime or for which the individual is sentenced to life in prison.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to close the California Rehabilitation Center located in Norco, California, no later than either December 31, 2016, or 6 months after the construction of three Level II dorm facilities. This bill would suspend this requirement pending a review by the Department of Finance and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that determines the facility can be closed. (2) The California Constitution establishes the civil service, to include every officer and employee of the state, except as provided, and requires permanent appointment and promotion in the civil service to be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination. Existing law requires the appointing power in all cases not exempted by the California Constitution to fill positions by appointment, including cases of transfers, reinstatements, promotions, and demotions, in strict accordance with specified provisions of law, and requires that appointments to vacant positions be made from employment lists. Existing law, subject to the approval of the State Personnel Board, allows an appointing agency to enter into arrangements with personnel agencies in other jurisdictions for the purpose of exchanging services and effecting transfers of employees. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, make the private California City Correctional Center in California City an agency or jurisdiction for the purpose of exchanging services pursuant to the above provision and all related rules. (3) Existing law allows the State Personnel Board to prescribe rules governing the temporary assignment or loan of employees within an agency or between agencies not to exceed 2 years, or between jurisdictions not to exceed 4 years, for specified purposes. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, make the private California City Correctional Center in California City an agency or jurisdiction for the purpose of the above provision and all related rules for a period not to exceed 2 years. (4) Existing law allows the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to enter into an agreement with a city, county, or city and county, to permit transfer of prisoners in the custody of the secretary to a jail or other adult correctional facility. Under existing law, prisoners transferred to a local facility remain under the legal custody of the department. Existing law prohibits any agreement pursuant to these provisions unless the cost per inmate in the facility is no greater than the average costs of keeping an inmate in a comparable facility of the department. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, for purposes of entering into agreements pursuant to the above provisions, waive any process, regulation, or requirement relating to entering into those agreements. The bill would, until January 1, 2017, delete the provision requiring that prisoners transferred to a local facility remain under the legal custody of the department and would delete the requirement that no agreement be entered into unless the cost per inmate in the facility is no greater than the average costs of keeping an inmate in a comparable facility of the department. The bill would, until January 1, 2017, allow a transfer of prisoners to include inmates who have been sentenced to the department but remain housed in a county jail, and would specify that these prisoners shall be under the sole legal custody and jurisdiction of the sheriff or other official having jurisdiction over the facility and not under the legal custody and jurisdiction of the department. The bill would also, until January 1, 2017, allow the secretary to enter into one or more agreements in the form of a lease or operating agreement with private entities to obtain secure housing capacity in the state or in another state, upon terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate to the secretary. The bill would, until January 1, 2017, waive any process, regulation, or requirement that relates to the procurement or implementation of those agreements, except as specified. The bill would make the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act inapplicable to these provisions. (5) Existing law allows the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish and operate community correctional centers. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, allow the secretary to enter into agreements for the transfer of prisoners to community correctional centers, and to enter into contracts to provide housing, sustenance, and supervision for inmates placed in community correctional centers. The bill would, until January 1, 2017, waive any process, regulation, or requirement that relates to entering into those agreements. (6) Existing law allows any court or other agency or officer of this state having power to commit or transfer an inmate to any institution for confinement to commit or transfer that inmate to any institution outside this state if this state has entered into a contract or contracts for the confinement of inmates in that institution and the inmate, if he or she was sentenced under California law, has executed written consent to the transfer. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, allow the secretary to transfer an inmate to a facility in another state without the consent of the inmate. (7) Existing law establishes the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST) within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and requires the CPOST to develop, approve, and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officers. Existing law allows for the use of training academies and centers, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2017, allow the department to use a training academy established for the private California City Correctional Center. (8) Existing law, the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009, authorizes each county to establish a Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund, and authorizes the state to annually allocate moneys into a State Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund to be used for specified purposes relating to improving local probation supervision practices and capacities. As part of the California Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2009, existing law requires the Director of Finance to make certain calculations, including the cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole an offender who fails local supervision and is sent to prison. Existing law requires the Director of Finance to calculate a probation failure reduction incentive payment based on the estimated number of probationers successfully prevented from being incarcerated, multiplied by a specified percentage of the cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole a probationer who was sent to prison. Existing law requires the Department of Finance to calculate 5% of the total statewide estimated number of probationers successfully prevented from being incarcerated for counties that successfully reduce the number of adult felony probationers incarcerated multiplied by the costs to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole a probationer who was sent to prison to be used to provide high performance grants to county probation departments. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2014, remove the requirement that the Director of Finance calculate the cost to the state to incarcerate in prison and supervise on parole an offender who fails local supervision and is sent to prison, and would instead require the Director of Finance to calculate the cost to the state to incarcerate in a contract facility and supervise on parole an offender who fails local supervision and is sent to prison. The bill would require the probation failure reduction incentive payment to be based on the estimated number of probationers successfully prevented from being incarcerated multiplied by a percentage of the state's cost of housing an inmate in a contract facility, and to supervise on parole a probationer who was sent to prison. The bill would require the Department of Finance to calculate high performance grants to county probation departments as 5% of the total statewide estimated number of probationers successfully prevented from being incarcerated multiplied by the state's cost of housing an inmate in a contract facility, and to supervise on parole a probationer who was sent to prison. The bill would create the Recidivism Reduction Fund in the State Treasury to be available upon appropriation by the Legislature for activities designed to reduce the state's prison population, and would allow funds available in the Recidivism Reduction Fund to be transferred to the State Community Corrections Performance Incentives Fund. (9) The bill would appropriate $315,000,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the purposes of this measure. The bill would require the department to spend the funds only to the extent needed to avoid early release. The bill would require any amounts not encumbered by June 30, 2014 to be transferred to the Recidivism Reduction Fund, except as provided. The bill would require the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to report no later than April 1, 2014, and again on April 1, 2015, to the Director of Finance and specified legislative committees detailing the number of inmates housed in leased beds and in contracted beds both inside and outside of the state pursuant to this measure. The bill would require the administration to assess the state prison system, including capacity needs, prison population levels, recidivism rates, and factors effecting crime levels, and to develop recommendations on balanced solutions that are cost effective and protect public safety. The bill would require the Department of Finance to submit the administration's interim report to the Legislature not later than April 1, 2014, and to submit the final report to the Legislature not later than January 10, 2015. (10) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.