Steinberg's rendition of the deal is here. The deal calls for a request to the three-judge panel to delay the December 31 deadline for getting down to the panel's completely arbitrary population figure. If the judges say no, then Brown's plan to expand capacity goes into effect. Steinberg's release does not say that dismissing the pending appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court is part of the deal.
There is funding for increased rehabilitation programs. I was struck by this paragraph (emphasis added):
Changes the funding formula for SB 678 (2009), which was affected by realignment in a way that dramatically reduced how the savings to probation were calculated. SB 678 provides performance-based grants to counties who have established programs that successfully reduce the number of felony probationers who return to prisons. With this change, probation's continued success with the felony probation offender population will result in approximately $100 million more for evidence-based probation practices under the new formula.Steinberg defines "success" as the probationer (parolee?) not returning to prison. We at CJLF define rehabilitation success as not committing any more crimes. Those are not the same thing. If a "success" rate can be boosted, with a resulting flow of money, by letting a probationer or parolee commit new crimes and get nothing but a
The reality is that major reductions in recidivism through rehabilitation programs are not going to happen. Here and there a program may help someone go straight who otherwise would not have, but most releasees will either go straight or stay crooked on their own regardless of what the programs they are subjected to.
Directing the flow of funding to programs that have been proved successful is a basically good idea, but the devil is in the details. Success must be carefully defined and validly measured.