BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator Bruce McPherson, Chair S 2003-2004 Regular Session B 4 5 9 SB 459 (Burton) As Amended March 12, 2003 Hearing date: March 13, 2003 Welfare and Institutions Code AA:br YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PAROLE BOARD : CONSOLIDATION INTO CYA; CURRENT YEAR APPROPRIATION HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislation: SB 1793 (Burton) - 2001-02 session; vetoed Support: Unknown Opposition:None known KEY ISSUES SHOULD THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PAROLE BOARD ("YOPB") BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE YOUTH AUTHORITY, AS SPECIFIED? SHOULD THE NUMBER OF YOPB MEMBERS BE REDUCED? SHOULD THE DIRECTOR OF CYA BE THE EX OFFICIO, NONVOTING CHAIR OF THE YOPB? (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageB SHOULD THE DUTIES OF YOPB MEMBERS BE CONCENTRATED TO RELEASE, REVOCATION AND DISCIPLINARY APPEALS? (CONTINUED) SHOULD YOPB MEMBERS AND THEIR DESIGNEES BE SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED TRAINING? SHOULD CERTAIN DUTIES NOW PERFORMED BY THE YOPB BE SHIFTED TO THE CYA? SHOULD THE CYA BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COUNTIES AND COURTS WITH SPECIFIED INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF CYA WARDS? SHOULD THE CYA BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT AND MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SPECIFIED DATA? SHOULD THE AUTHORITY OF JUVENILE COURTS TO REMOVE A WARD FROM THE CYA BE CLARIFIED? SHOULD JUVENILE COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO SET A MAXIMUM TERM OF PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT IN THE CYA BASED UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MATTER OR MATTERS WHICH BROUGHT OR CONTINUED THE MINOR UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT? SHOULD $1.55 MILLION BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO YOPB AS AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR USUAL AND CURRENT EXPENSES OF THE YOPB? SHOULD THE NAME OF YOPB BE CHANGED TO "THE YOUTH AUTHORITY BOARD"? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to consolidate the operations of the Youthful Offender Parole Board under the Department of the Youth Authority and make related changes to the juvenile law, as specified. (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageC Current law generally authorizes juvenile courts to commit juvenile offenders to the Department of the Youth Authority. (See Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") 731; 732; 733; 734; 736; 1736.) Current law requires counties to pay the state a monthly fee for persons who have been committed to the Youth Authority, generally ranging from $150 per ward to 100 percent of the per capita institutional cost of the Youth Authority, as specified, depending upon the nature of the offense upon which the commitment is based. (WIC 912; 912.5.) Current law establishes the seven-member state Youthful Offender Parole Board ("YOPB"), comprised of gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the Senate, which generally is responsible with overseeing a number of decisions regarding Youth Authority wards, including length of stay and readiness to parole, handling certain disciplinary matters, revoking parole, and required programming. (WIC 1716 et seq.; 1766.) Structural Consolidation: YOPB into CYA This bill would recast, effective January 1, 2004, the powers and duties of the YOPB, and consolidate some of its functions into the CYA with the following changes: Place YOPB under CYA; Reduce board from 7 to 3 appointees, plus the chair; Grandfather-in existing board members (3), with one term expiring March '04, one term expiring on March '05 and one term expiring March '06; Provide for transfer of YOPB staff to CYA pursuant to the applicable Government Code section; Add mandatory training for board members and their designees; Make the CYA director the board's ex officio nonvoting chair; Distill the board's powers to 3: releases (discharges (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageD and parole), parole revocations and disciplinary appeals; Authorize the board to use designees who are subject to the same training as board members; Give wards a right to appeal time adjustments to a panel of at least 2 board members; and Restore the YOPB's old name, "Youth Authority Board" (changed to YOPB in 1980). In addition, this bill would enact the following changes pertaining to CYA powers and duties: Shift the following powers and duties from YOPB to CYA: ? return of persons to the court of commitment for redisposition by the court; ? determination of offense category; ? setting of parole consideration dates using existing guidelines; ? conducting annual reviews; ? ordering treatment programs; ? making institutional placements; ? making furlough placements; ? return of nonresident persons to the jurisdiction of the state of legal residence; ? disciplinary decision making (with appeals to the Board); and ? referrals pursuant to section 1800 (continued commitment of dangerous persons). Require CYA to promulgate regulations for its disciplinary system, as specified; Require CYA to provide specified ward treatment information to county probation and courts; and Require CYA to collect and make public specified aggregate data concerning its population. Juvenile Law Changes (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageE Current law provides that "(a) minor committed to the Department of the Youth Authority may not be held in physical confinement for a period of time in excess of the maximum period of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court." (WIC 731.) This bill would additionally provide that a "minor committed to the Department of the Youth Authority also may not be held in physical confinement for a period of time in excess of the maximum term of physical confinement set by the court based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may not exceed the maximum period of adult confinement as determined pursuant to this section." Current law provides that "(t)he court committing a ward to the Youth Authority may thereafter change, modify, or set aside the order of commitment . . . In changing, modifying, or setting aside such order of commitment, the court shall give due consideration to the effect thereof upon the discipline and parole system of the Youth Authority or of the correctional school in which the ward may have been placed by the Youth Authority. Except as in this section provided, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to interfere with the system of parole and discharge now or hereafter established by law, or by rule of the Youth Authority, for the parole and discharge of wards of the juvenile court committed to the Youth Authority, or with the management of any school, institution, or facility under the jurisdiction of the Youth Authority." (WIC 779.) This bill would clarify that this "section does not limit the authority of the court to change, modify, or set aside an order of commitment after a noticed hearing and upon a showing of good cause that the Youth Authority is unable to, or failing to, provide treatment consistent with Section 734." Appropriation (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageF Under current law, "(t)he Youthful Offender Parole Board is limited in its expenditures to funds specifically made available for its use." (WIC 1724.) The 2002-2003 budget bill (AB 425 (Oropeza), Ch. 379, Stats. 2002, contained only half ($1,644,000) of the YOPB's budget for fiscal year 2002-2003; the other half was in SB 1793 (Burton), which was vetoed by the Governor on September 30, 2002. As a result, the YOPB is without funding to conduct its operations for the entire 2002-2003 budget year. This bill would make an immediate appropriation for the usual current expenses of the YOPB for the current year budget in the amount of $1.55 million. COMMENTS 1. Stated Need for This Bill The author states: This bill consolidates the work of the Youthful Offender Parole Board under the Department of the Youth Authority in a manner that makes both fiscal and policy sense. Up until 1980, the YOPB was part of CYA. Returning to this general framework will greatly improve the link between board members and the CYA, which will result in a more effective and efficient Youth Authority. This bill also contains important checks and balances that will enhance the relationship between CYA and the counties, which will improve CYA correctional services. In addition, this bill ensures that the Youthful Offender Parole Board is adequately funded to perform its duties mandated by law for the remainder of the 2002-2003 budget year. (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageG 2. Prior Legislation Last year, SB 1793 (Burton) proposed to eliminate YOPB and shift its functions to local probation and the juvenile courts. SB 1793, which passed this Committee (4-0), was vetoed by the Governor on September 30, 2002. 3. Current Structure and Operation of the Youthful Offender Parole Board The Youthful Offender Parole Board (YOPB), comprised of seven gubernatorial appointees, is the paroling authority for young persons committed by the courts to the Youth Authority. The YOPB budget is approximately $3.4 million annually. YOPB was established originally in 1941 by the Legislature as the "Youth Authority Board." When the Department of the Youth Authority was created in 1942, the Director also served as the Chairman of the Board. The Board separated from CYA in 1980 and was renamed the Youthful Offender Parole Board. YOPB members and hearing officers conduct about 20,000 hearings a year at the 11 CYA institutions, 4 camps, and regional parole offices for the approximately 6,400 wards at CYA and 4,000 on parole. Hearing officers include YOPB staff or retired annuitants who are authorized to conduct hearings. YOPB hearings fall into the following general categories: Within approximately 45-60 days, YOPB used to conduct an Initial Hearing where the initial parole consideration date (PCD) is set and treatment is ordered; however, the Legislature has been advised by the administration that since November of 2002, this function has been shifted to the CYA, with CYA staff recommendations subject to YOPB approval. Once a year YOPB conducts an Annual Review to assess the progress of the ward and if they deem appropriate, modify the parole consideration date (PCD). YOPB can also hold Progress Reviews more frequently to review progress or modify the PCD. (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageH At the request of CYA, YOPB holds disciplinary hearings to determine whether a time-add should be given (extending the parole consideration date) as a disciplinary action. At the ward's parole consideration hearing, YOPB determines whether to grant parole or extend the institution stay. If parole is granted, YOPB sets conditions of parole. YOPB also conducts Parole Revocation Hearings for parole violators to determine whether parole should be revoked and the ward returned to the institution. Unlike the Board of Prison Terms, the YOPB has parole authority over every ward at CYA. However, all wards committed to CYA will be released eventually regardless of whether they are granted parole by YOPB. Wards must be released if all of their available confinement time has been exhausted, or if the ward reaches the age of juvenile court jurisdiction (age 21 or 25 depending on the offense).<1> 4. What This Bill Would Do This bill would consolidate and restructure the Board's powers and duties under the CYA. As explained above, this bill would rename and move YOPB to be sited within the CYA, with the CYA director serving as the ex officio nonvoting chair of the Board. The size of the Board would be reduced to three members, who -------------------------- <1> A ward can be detained beyond the age of 25 through a civil commitment-type process. Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 allows YOPB to request that the prosecuting attorney petition the committing court for further detention if YOPB determines that discharging the ward would be physically dangerous to the public because of the person's mental or physical deficiency, disorder, or abnormality. This bill would retain this process, but amend it to authorize CYA, rather than YOPB, to request commencement of this process. (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageI would be gubernatorial appointees subject to Senate confirmation. The board's duties would be condensed to releases, revocations and disciplinary appeals. These duties would be supported by CYA staff. The author's office estimates that the number of hearings required for the board will drop significantly, from 19,733 (2001-2002 data) to between 7,684 and 10,985 as a result of narrowing the board's duties to these functions and shifting the remainder of their current duties to CYA. The administration argues that five board members are necessary to perform the board's functions, even with those functions narrowed to releases, revocations and disciplinary appeals.<2> This bill would shift the remainder of YOPB's current duties to the CYA, as described above. In addition, CYA would be required to provide county probation and juvenile courts with specified information concerning ward treatment and progress, and would be required to compile specified data concerning its population and treatment effectiveness. This bill would authorize the court to additionally set maximum terms of physical confinement in the CYA based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters which brought or continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This new provision would provide for court consideration of factors about the offense and the offender's history which would be comparable to those employed now for -------------------------- <2> The CYA estimates that under the bill's proposed framework, the board would be required to conduct 655 hearings a year in 77 available hearing days, resulting in the need for 5 board members. This calculation assumes between 1800 to 2400 disciplinary appeals a year, which would be approximately 60 to 80 percent of the disciplinary appeals conducted by the board in 2001-2002 (3301 hearings). The author's office estimates that the number of disciplinary appeals will be appreciably reduced by focusing the board's consideration to those cases where wards are appealing a time adjustment. In addition, the number of these appeals may be further impacted by the decline in the Youth Authority population. (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageJ the triad sentencing of adults, and have those considerations reflected in the CYA confinement term ordered by the court. Also, this bill would make clear that Welfare and Institutions Code section 779 does not limit the authority of the court to change, modify, or set aside an order of commitment to the Youth Authority, as specified. 5. Concerns About the YOPB Experts and advocates have expressed serious concerns about the YOPB for many years. In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth (chaired by Senator Robert Presley) in 1988, former CYA director and chairman of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency Allen Breed endorsed abolishing the YOPB. In 2000, the Technical Assistance Plan (TAP) for the Youth Authority administered by the Board of Corrections similarly recommended eliminating the YOPB. More recently, in December 2002 the Office of the Inspector General severely criticized the YOPB. Among other findings, the OIG concluded: The YOPB "lacks treatment expertise"; The YOPB "appears to order more programs than wards can reasonably complete by the parole consideration date"; "board hearing staff routinely checks off programs to be provided without documentation linking the programs to the ward's history and treatment needs as identified by the (CYA)"; and "board hearing staff members who recommend the treatment programs are not necessarily trained in fields related to the programs at issue and in some cases appear to lack basic understanding of the programs available." (More) In addition, the OIG examined a random sample of 121 wards with an average confinement time of approximately 36 months. The wards had been ordered to complete an average of 5.4 programs, and, after approximately three years of confinement, had completed an average of 1.6 programs (approximately 30 percent of the programs ordered). Those statistics are consistent with data from the (CYA) showing that while the average confinement time given to wards at the initial hearing was 17.8 months in 2001, the average length of stay was 28.3 months. The extended confinement time results from board-imposed additional time either because of disciplinary action or because of the ward's failure to complete board-imposed programs. That the wards in the sample had completed only 30 percent of the board-ordered programs after three years of confinement also raises questions about the adequacy of efforts by the (CYA) to provide programs to wards. 6. Background: CYA Population; California's Juvenile Justice System; Juvenile Arrest Rates CYA houses about 5,300 youthful offenders, and provides them with education, training and treatment services. CYA's institutional population has dropped by over 46 percent since 1996. Although wards are committed to CYA by local courts, decisions relating to length of stay and parole are made by YOPB. County probation departments now supervise approximately 97% of all juvenile offenders; the remaining 3% are committed to CYA. State policies have increasingly recognized the need to strengthen the local juvenile justice system and its array of alternatives and graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders. For example: (More) SB 459 (Burton) PageL CYA Sliding Scale Fee Legislation . In 1996, a new fee structure was imposed to provide incentives for counties to treat less serious offenders in county-level placements. Counties are required to pay 100% of the average cost for "category 7" wards, 75% for "category 6" wards and 50% for "category 5" wards. Counties now pay over $50 million annually for their commitments to CYA. Crime Prevention Act . Over the past two years, the state has provided counties with $237.6 million to develop and implement comprehensive juvenile justice strategies. An additional $116.3 million is proposed in the Governor's 2002-03 budget. Juvenile Facility Construction Funds . Since 1997-98, a total of $464.1 million in state and federal funds have been dedicated to assist counties remodel and construct local juvenile facilities. Juvenile Justice Challenge Grants . Since 1996, a total of $131 million has been allocated to counties for grants to develop innovative approaches to juvenile crime. Responding to these state initiatives, local leaders have established innovative strategies emphasizing collaborative and interdisciplinary responses to juvenile crime. Judges, probation departments, local law enforcement agencies, district attorneys and public defenders, health and human services agencies, and community based organizations have come together to plan, identify gaps in services, and coordinate resources and interventions. The juvenile arrest rate in California has declined dramatically over the last several years. From 1995 - 2000, for example, the felony arrest rate for juveniles dropped over 34%; from 1980 - 2000, the felony juvenile arrest rate declined 50%. During the same 20-year period, the total SB 459 (Burton) PageM juvenile arrest rate dropped over 38%.<3> *************** --------------------------- <3> Source: California Department of Justice.