BILL NUMBER: AB 915 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 16, 2013
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer
FEBRUARY 22, 2013
An act to add Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 1990) to
Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to
youthful offenders , and making an appropriation therefor
.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 915, as amended, Jones-Sawyer. Juvenile
Youth Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Act of 2013.
Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to
be used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health,
drug and alcohol, and other departments to provide appropriate
rehabilitative and supervision services to specified youthful
offenders.
This bill, the Juvenile Youth
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act
of 2013, would permit each county to establish in each county
treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B
account. The bill would require the Department of Finance, in
consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation
Officers of California, to calculate the cost to the state of
housing and supervising juvenile youth
offenders who have committed certain specified offenses for the
fiscal year 2013-13 2012 -13
and every year thereafter and, upon appropriation by the
Legislature, to would annually allocate 75% the
savings realized to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part
B account, which would be created by this bill, for the
purposes specified in this bill , thereby making an
appropriation . The bill would require, in any fiscal year for
which a county receives money pursuant to these provisions, the funds
to be made available to the local Community Corrections
Partnership of that county the chief probation officer
to be utilized to improve local probation supervision
practices and capacities serving juvenile offenders and for
the implementation or enhancement of recognized best practices for
serving high-need youth offenders . The bill would require
that 40% of the funds be allocated proportionally and directly to
those counties with net decreases in new admissions of
juvenile youth offenders to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, 40% to
be available to fund a block grant program, as specified, and 20% to
be available to fund technical assistance for counties in the ongoing
implementation of model best practices
for serving certain specified juvenile offenders.
The bill would require county probation departments receiving
funds pursuant to the bill to develop and submit a youth supervision
and rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community
Corrections. The bill would require the chief probation officer to
prepare and submit a report on the use of the funds to the Board of
State and Community Corrections after approval by the juvenile
justice coordinating counsel for that county. By imposing new duties
on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority 2/3 . Appropriation:
no yes . Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no yes .
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be
cited, as the Youth Community Incentives Act of 2013.
SEC. 2. Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 1990)
is added to Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code , to read:
CHAPTER 1.7. YOUTH COMMUNITY INCENTIVES
Article 1. General Provisions
1990. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(1) Counties are steadily decreasing their new admissions of youth
offenders who have committed offenses specified in subdivision (b)
of Section 707 of this code and Section 290 of the Penal Code to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile
Facilities (DJF).
(2) This trend of decreasing new DJF admissions indicates that
counties are consistently serving an increased number of DJF-eligible
youth at the local level. However, they are doing so without any
additional resources or accountability from the state.
(3) Local youth offender justice programs are uniquely positioned
to deliver successful rehabilitative services for California's
high-need and high-risk youth offenders. Counties are well situated
to develop or enhance partnerships with community-based service
providers that can deliver individualized treatment through case
management, mental health services, alcohol and drug counseling, and
reentry support, with gender responsive, culturally competent, and
trauma-informed care.
(4) Research has shown that improved outcomes for youth tend to
occur in local facilities with low staff-to-ward ratios, and in
community-based programs that utilize best practices and have a focus
on individualized treatment. Individual youth offenders have
improved outcomes when they are provided access to appropriate
services within the context of well-designed programs and systems
that demonstrate a collaboration between county probation departments
and community-based services.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
to promote best practices at the county level for serving youth
offenders.
1991. As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Juvenile justice coordinating council" means a multiagency
council established pursuant to Section 749.22 for the development of
effective county-based programs and practices for juvenile justice.
(b) "DJF-eligible" means youth offenders who have committed an
offense specified in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of this code or
Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(c) "Best practices" refers to supervision, treatment, and
rehabilitative policies, programs, procedures, and practices
understood by the collective experience and expertise of the field of
juvenile justice to reduce recidivism and improve long-term life
outcomes among youth offenders. Examples of best practices include
strengths-based, individualized, family-centered, culturally
competent services, positive youth development frameworks, gender
responsive programming, trauma-informed care, and accurate data
tracking of recidivism rates and long-term life outcomes for
supervised youth. "Facility-based best practices" also include those
identified by the Missouri Division of Youth Services for successful
supervision of high-need and high-risk youth offenders, including,
but not limited to, use of smaller facilities closer to the youth's
home, individualized attention in small group settings, creating a
safe and positive staff and peer culture in facilities, family
integration in rehabilitation and after care planning, and academic
and vocational skill building.
(d) "Positive outcomes" refer to improved reentry and performance
of youth following contact with the juvenile justice system. This may
include improved educational performance, development of employment
and life skills, access to healthcare and mental health services, and
lowered recidivism rates.
(e) "High-need youth" refers to youth with multiple risk factors,
including, but not limited to, those who are from low-income
families, have disabilities, development delays, learning
disabilities, substance abuse issues, trauma or mental health needs,
or are homeless or in foster care.
(f) "High-risk youth" refers to youth who have been determined, by
a validated risk assessment tool, to be at high risk of reoffense
resulting in the possibility of a new DJF-eligible offense resulting
in the sustained petition within one year.
(g) "Chief probation officer" means the chief probation officer
for the county, or city and county, in which a youth offender is
subject to probation for the commission of a DJF-eligible offense.
1992. (a) Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each
county treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account
to receive all amounts allocated to that county for the purposes of
implementing this chapter.
(b) Allocations for the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B
account may be used by the chief probation officer to enhance the
capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, or
other county departments and community-based organizations to provide
appropriate rehabilitative and supervision for DJF-eligible youth.
(c) In any fiscal year for which a county receives money to be
expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys,
including any interest, shall be made available to the chief
probation officer, by the juvenile justice coordinating council of
that county, within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the
fund, only for the purposes specified in Section 1996.
1993. (a) Beginning July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance, in
consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation
Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to the state of
housing and supervising DJF-eligible youth offenders who have
committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of
this code or Section 290 of the Penal Code who were in the custody
of, or subject to supervision by, DJF for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by every July 1 of each year
thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and
Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of
California, shall calculate the cost to the state of housing and
supervising DJF-eligible youth offenders who have committed an
offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 who were in the
custody of, or subject to supervision by, DJF in the immediately
preceding fiscal year.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Department of Finance shall calculate the savings to the state,
if savings are realized, by subtracting the amount calculated
pursuant to subdivision (b) from the amount calculated pursuant to
subdivision (a). Seventy-five percent of that amount is hereby
appropriated from the General Fund and shall be transferred annually
by the Controller to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B
which is hereby established as a continuously appropriated fund.
(d) The Department of Finance shall determine the allocation to be
made to each county pursuant to Sections 1994 and 1995, and shall
report those amounts to the Controller. The Controller shall make an
allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account
to each county's Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account
in accordance with the report.
1994. Subject to subdivisions (d) and (e) and subject to Article
2, the amounts deposited in the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund
Part B account pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1993 shall be
allocated as follows:
(a) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1 of
each year thereafter, 40 percent of the funds in the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be allocated
proportionally and directly to those counties with a net decrease in
new admissions of youthful offenders to DJF compared to new
admissions of youthful offenders to DJF for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
The purpose of this funding is to increase the capacity of those
counties with net decreases of youth admissions to DJF to provide
supervision and rehabilitation services using best practices. The
proportional funding allocated pursuant to this subdivision shall be
calculated pursuant to Section 1995.
(b) (1) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1
of each year thereafter, 40 percent of the funds in the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be available to fund a
block grant program whereby each county may apply for funds in order
to increase capacity for serving the county's population of
DJF-eligible youth, using best practices. The funding made available
pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated on the basis of a
competitive grant that is open to all counties and is not limited to
counties showing decreases in new admissions to DJF.
(2) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall oversee the
competitive grant process, including the development of a request
for proposal process and an annual report describing the use of
expenditures made pursuant to this subdivision. The request for
proposal process shall include requirements regarding the number of
DJF-eligible youth served, as determined by the board.
(c) (1) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1
of each year thereafter, 20 percent of the funds in the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be made available to
fund technical assistance for counties in the ongoing implementation
of best practices for servicing DJF-eligible youth, or for those
counties developing programs to serve a combination of DJF-eligible
and non-DJF-eligible youth offenders.
(2) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall oversee the
development of a request for proposal process for the technical
assistance funding available pursuant to paragraph (1). The request
for proposal process shall include requirements regarding the number
of DJF-eligible youth served, as determined by the board.
(d) If discretionary prosecutorial direct filings to adult court,
as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 707, increase by more than
5 percent from the 2012-13 fiscal year baseline for any county
receiving allocations pursuant to this section, that county shall not
receive any funding pursuant to this chapter.
(e) This subdivision shall supercede subdivisions (a), (b), and
(c) if the amount allocated to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund
Part B account for any given year is three million dollars
($3,000,000) or less, in which event all of the funds in the account
shall be available to fund technical assistance pursuant to
subdivision (c) for counties in the ongoing implementation of best
practices for serving DJF-eligible youth, or for those counties
developing programs to serve a combination of DJF-eligible and
non-DJF-eligible youth offenders.
1995. The proportional funding allocation required by subdivision
(a) of Section 1994 shall be calculated as follows:
(a) Beginning July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance, in
consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
shall calculate the number of admissions committed by each county to
DJF, for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
(b) Beginning July 2013, and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of
California, shall calculate the number of new admissions committed by
each county to DJF in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of
California, shall calculate the net decrease in new admissions to DJF
from each county by subtracting the amount calculated annually
pursuant to subdivision (b) for each county from the amount
calculated pursuant to subdivision (a) for each county. If the result
is zero or below for any given county, that county shall not be
eligible to receive funds from the allocation made pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 1994.
(d) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of
California, shall calculate the total net decrease in new admissions
committed by those counties demonstrating decreases in new admissions
to DJF in the immediately preceding fiscal year, by summing those
counties' net decreases calculated pursuant to subdivision (c).
(e) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of
California, shall calculate the proportional decrease in new
admissions for each county by dividing each county's net decrease in
new admissions calculated pursuant to subdivision (c) by the total
net decrease in new admissions calculated pursuant to subdivision
(d).
(f) (1) The proportional funding allocation pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 1994 for each county shall be determined
by multiplying the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (e) by
the total funding allocation specified in subdivision (a) of Section
1994 and shall be directly allocated to each county.
(2) Any portion of funds described in paragraph (1) that is unused
within 12 months of receipt shall revert to the county's Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account for future use, as specified
by Section 1996.
Article 2. Performance and Accountability
1996. (a) Money allocated to each county's Youthful Offender
Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be utilized to improve local
probation supervision practices and capacity to serve DJF-eligible
youth offenders, utilizing best practices. County probation
departments receiving Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B
account allocations shall, in coordination with the local juvenile
justice coordinating counsel, develop and submit a youth supervision
and rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community
Corrections for approval for use of the funds described in
subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 1994, as follows:
(1) Best practices shall be identified and defined by the Board of
State and Community Corrections using the collective experience and
expertise of the juvenile justice field, and shall include core
values with proven results, including, but not limited to,
strengths-based, individualized, family-centered, gender responsive,
culturally competent services, positive youth development frameworks,
and trauma-informed care.
(2) Positive outcomes shall be identified and defined by the Board
of State and Community Corrections using the collective experience
and expertise of the juvenile justice field, and shall include, but
not be limited to, improved educational performance, development of
employment and life skills, improved access to healthcare and mental
health services, enhanced public safety, and reduced recidivism of
DJF-eligible youth offenders, and a reduction in the number of youth
offenders sentenced to DJF.
(3) Technical assistance allocations shall be utilized for funding
site visits between county probation departments, consultations with
state and national experts, improvements to probation data systems
related to youth offenders, matching grants with private foundations
who are investing in county best practices, or for other purposes
approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections that are
aligned with the purposes of improving the supervision and
rehabilitation of DJF-eligible youth offenders under this chapter.
(4) The chief probation officer shall devote a minimum of 5
percent of all funding received pursuant to this chapter to enhancing
data capacity relevant to monitoring the programs and practices
implemented with the funds pursuant to this chapter. A chief
probation officer may petition the Board of State and Community
Corrections to have this restriction waived, and the Board of State
and Community Corrections shall have the authority to grant the
petition, if the chief probation officer can demonstrate that the
department is already developing sufficient funds to the evaluation
of these programs and practices.
(b) A portion of the funds allocated pursuant to subdivision (c)
of Section 1994 shall be used to fund a full-time position with the
Board of State and Community Corrections to oversee grant processes,
including the development and administration of the request for
proposal process specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and
paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1994. The staff person
shall monitor and evaluate any programs or facilities supported by
funds allocated pursuant to this bill, including site visits for all
appropriate counties.
(c) No later than 15 months following the initial receipt of
funding, the chief probation officer shall prepare and submit a
comprehensive report for each funding stream received through the
Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B to the local juvenile
justice coordinating council for review and approval. Within two
weeks of approval by the juvenile justice coordinating council, the
chief probation officer shall submit the report to the Board of State
and Community Corrections. The report shall include, but not be
limited to, all of the following information:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, or
strategies, including measurable performance outcomes, funded by each
block grant allocation made pursuant to this chapter.
(2) The effectiveness of the practices described in paragraph (1)
based on performance outcomes.
(3) The number of DJF-eligible youth served by the county for the
year in which the report is being made.
(4) The percentage of DJF-eligible youth served by the county who
are being supervised in accordance with best practices.
(5) The impact of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter
on reducing recidivism in DJF-eligible youth offenders and reducing
the number of youth offenders who are sent to DJF for the year in
which the report is being made.
(6) The number of youth offenders transferred to adult court
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 707.
(7) A specification of the supervision policies, procedures,
programs, and practices that were eliminated as a result of pursuing
best practices.
(8) Any recommendations regarding resource allocations or
additional collaboration with other local, state, regional, or
federal entities for improvements to this chapter.
(9) Itemized allocations from the Youthful Offender Block Grant
Fund Part B account to enhance the capacity of county probation,
mental health, drug and alcohol, or other county departments, and
community-based organizations for the purposes of providing
appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services for DJF-eligible
youth.
1997. The Board of State and Community Corrections may enforce
violations of grant requirements or direct allocations with
suspensions or cancellations of grant funds. Violations may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Failure to submit a proper youth supervision and
rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community Corrections
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1996 within three months of
the receipt of funds.
(b) Failure to submit a proper comprehensive report to the Board
of State and Community Corrections pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 1996 within 15 months of the receipt of funds.
(c) Failure to use allocations pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b),
and (c) of Section 1994 appropriately to fund best practices or
positive outcomes, as determined by the Board of State and Community
Corrections through site visits or other means of review.
1998. The moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter shall
supplement, but not supplant, any other state or county appropriation
for the juvenile justice coordinating counsel or the chief probation
officer, or both. The moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter
shall not be used to supplant any other county funding sources not
expressly specified in this chapter.
SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs
shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1. Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section
1990) is added to Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
to read:
CHAPTER 1.7. JUVENILE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PERFORMANCE
INCENTIVES
1990. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Juvenile
Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2013.
1991. (a) No later than July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance,
in consultation with the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the
Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to
the state of housing and supervising juvenile offenders who have
committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 who
were in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice for
the 2012-13 fiscal year.
(b) No later than July 1, 2014, and every July 1 thereafter, the
Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community
Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall
calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising juvenile
offenders who have committed an offense described in subdivision (b)
of Section 707 who were in the custody of, or subject to supervision
by, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2014, and no later than July 1 of each year
thereafter, the Department of Finance shall calculate the savings to
the state, if savings are realized, by subtracting the amount
calculated annually pursuant to subdivision (b) from the amount
calculated pursuant to subdivision (a). Of this amount, 75 percent
shall, upon appropriation by the Legislature, be set aside and
allocated as specified in Section 1993.
1992. (a) Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each
county treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Part B account, to
receive all amounts allocated to that county pursuant to Section
1993.
(b) In any fiscal year for which a county receives money to be
expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys,
including any interest, shall be made available to the local
Community Corrections Partnership of that county for the purposes
specified in Section 1994.
1993. The amounts calculated pursuant to subdivision
(c) shall be allocated as follows:
(a) Forty percent shall be allocated proportionally and directly
to those counties with net decreases in new admissions of juvenile
offenders to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Division of Juvenile Justice over the fiscal year 2012-13 baseline
new commitments.
(b) Forty percent shall be available to fund a block grant program
whereby each county may apply for funds in order to increase
capacity for serving the county's population of juvenile offenders
who committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707.
The funding made available pursuant to this subdivision shall be
allocated on the basis of a competitive grant that is open to all
counties and is not limited to counties showing decreases in new
admissions to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Division of Juvenile Justice.
(c) Twenty percent shall be available to fund technical assistance
for counties in the ongoing implementation of model practices for
serving juvenile offenders who committed an offense described in
subdivision (b) of Section 707, or for those counties developing
programs to serve a combination of juvenile offenders who committed
an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 and other
juvenile offenders. A portion of these funds may be used to fund
staff positions within the Board of State and Community Corrections.
1994. Money allocated to each county Youthful Offender Block
Grant Part B account shall be utilized to improve local probation
supervision practices and capacities serving juvenile offenders
committed for offenses specified in subdivision (b) of Section 707
and for the implementation or enhancement of recognized best
practices for serving high-need youth offenders. Best practices shall
be identified and defined by the Board of State and Community
Corrections, and shall include core values with proven results,
including, but not limited to, strengths-based, individualized,
family-centered, culturally competent services, positive youth
development frameworks, and trauma-informed care.