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.