MEETING DATE
6/26/2014 |
BUREAU SUBMITTING THIS REPORT
Executive Office |
RESEARCHED BY (PRINT NAME)
Alexis Blaylock |
REVIEWED BY (PRINT NAME)
Alan Deal |
REPORT DATE
06/10/2014 |
APPROVED BY
Robert A. Stresak |
DATE APPROVED
06/11/14 |
PURPOSE
Decision Requested |
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No
|
| ISSUE, BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, & RECOMMENDATION |
| ISSUE: |
| Should the Commission take an Oppose position to AB 1860 (Peréz), an act to amend Section 832 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officers? |
| BACKGROUND: |
Assembly Bill 1860 would provide that "a probation department" that is a certified provider of the introductory training course (PC 832) shall not be required to offer the course to the general public."
This bill, sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California, states that the probation department needs to be certified to present the PC 832 course because they have had difficulty obtaining access to PC 832 courses. |
| ANALYSIS: |
After reviewing course offerings and meeting with various probation departments in California from January 2014 through March 2014, POST found that there is no unmet training need and no valid justification to certify additional presenters of the course. With 44 statewide presenters of the PC 832 course, one within the author's county and seven within neighboring counties, staff believes, there is, more than adequate availability of course presentations available in the author's region and throughout California.
POST maintains rosters and enrollment information on each certified course presented. According to a bill analysis prepared for the Senate Public Safety Committee, the sponsor of this bill offered that from June 2013, "the local provider published an updated training flyer for FY 2013-14 indicating that they would no longer be holding monthly PC 832 courses, but would instead be holding them quarterly." An audit of two presenters and course rosters in the author's immediate area, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, showed 29 course offerings for PC 832 between January 2013 and June 2014. There were 1,058 seats available and only 740 seats filled, leaving 318 unfilled seats that were available to be filled by the probation department. Of the 29 courses offered, only three reached enrollment capacity. This pattern is similar throughout the state.
Furthermore, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, the "local provider," offered PC 832 courses in August 2013 and September 2013. Of the 100 available seats, only 71 seats were enrolled, leaving 29 seats available to fulfill training needs. Inquiries of other probation departments around the state reflected none of them had trouble accessing PC 832 courses.
The Legislature for many years has give POST exclusive responsibility for determining the basic training needs of peace officers. POST Administrative Regulation 1052(d) states, "Only those courses for which there is an identifiable and unmet need shall be certified." The above factual data clearly demonstrates that there is no identifiable unmet training need for more PC 832 courses.
This bill would authorize a probation department, as a "certified provider of the introductory training course shall not be required to offer the course to the general public, and would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes in those provisions."
POST Administrative Regulation 1052(h) states, "No course shall be certified which restricts attendance to a single agency, unless the purpose of the course is to improve that agency and attendance by non-agency personnel would jeopardize the success of the course." No probation department in the author's area, nor any other part of the state, has revealed evidence to support an exception to the current regulations. As an introductory course to law enforcement that is offered to the general public, nothing in the required course content would jeopardize the success of the course. Since the minimum course content is the same statewide, there is no justifiable reason to restrict attendance.
Allowing the probation department to present this course would further dilute enrollment into classes that are already experiencing unfilled seats. This would potentially create an additional strain to the other presenters who are already bearing the cost of offering this course.
If the probation department has agency-specific training needs, they can fulfill them within their agency, as many other agencies do. POST Regulations does not prohibit any agency from developing and presenting their own agency-specific training to augment the minimum required content of a course.
POST met with the probation department in the author's area in January 2014 to address their concerns. POST explained the availability of classes and no unmet training need was identified.
POST also met with the author's staff and discussed the audit that shows there are unfilled seats in the courses that are already being offered. To date, the author and sponsor of the bill have not presented any evidence to support the need for this legislation.
The legislation would authorize all probation departments in the 58 counties of the state to become presenters of the PC 832 course. This would be very damaging to the enrollment of the other PC 832 course presenters and set up legislative protection that could result in the collapse of existing statewide network of presenters.
POST has made a reasonable effort to assist the sponsor in meeting their training needs by directing them to training that is available to them in their area. Course rosters indicate that the probation department has not taken advantage of the available courses in the area. Passing this bill would effectively allow the sponsor to use legislation to circumvent regulations which are already in place to address their training needs. |
| RECOMMENDATION: |
| Staff recommends that the Commission Oppose AB 1860. |
| ATTACHMENT(S): |
| Name: |
Type: |
| No Attachments Available |
|
|