A proposal to strip the Judicial Branch of its job of running probation and juvenile justice programs appears to be more a power play to consolidate authority in the executive branch than a change that would save money and improve success in rehabilitating criminals.

In what would be dramatic change, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy recommended in his budget message to the General Assembly Wednesday that more than 1,500 positions and about $260 million in annual funding be stripped from the Judicial Branch and moved to agencies under the authority of the governor.

Adult probation monitoring and alternative incarceration programs would move from the Judicial Department's Court Support Services Division to the Department of Correction, according to the proposal. Additionally, responsibility for community service programs for juvenile offenders, juvenile probation responsibilities, and juvenile offender residential and detention duties would move from Juvenile Justice and Family Services, operated by the judiciary, to the Department of Children and Families, answerable to the governor.

In introducing the proposed changes to journalists Wednesday, Secretary Ben Barnes of the Office of Policy and Management depicted it as part of the governor's "Second Chance Society" initiative. That policy approach is intended to find alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders and improve the chances of successfully returning to productive lives offenders who spend time in prison.

The governor's second-chance initiative makes sense, but this is not the way to pursue it. The Judicial Department is well experienced handling probationary and juvenile matters and appears ready to work with Gov. Malloy and the legislature in implementing the second-chance policy approach.

Further, the governor needs to be reminded that the Department of Children and Families remains under a federal court order because of past problems that have not been adequately resolved, at least in the opinion of the court-appointed monitor. Heaping more responsibility on an agency that faces major challenges is not a good public policy move.

In opposing the idea, Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers put it well.

"We have seen no evidence substantiating how this proposal will result in greater efficiencies or better outcomes," she said. "Additionally, we do not agree that the proposal will result in budgetary savings."

The General Assembly should assess this proposal carefully and critically. Unless the governor can make a more compelling case, it should reject this move to expand executive power.