BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 915
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
Counsel: Shaun Naidu
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 915 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended: April 16, 2013
SUMMARY : Requires the state to allocate to counties 75% of
savings realized by the transfer of juvenile offenders from the
custody of the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) to county
control to be used as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)May be cited as the Juvenile Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Act of 2013.
2)Makes legislative findings.
3)Defines specific terms, including defining "DJF-eligible youth
offenders" as youth offenders who have committed a specified
serious, violent, or sexual offense and thereby may be placed
in a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Division of Juvenile Justice facility.
4)Authorizes each county to establish a "Youth Offender Block
Grant Part B" account to receive all amounts allocated to that
county by the above provisions.
5)Requires, by July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance (DOF), in
consultation with the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC), and the Chief Probation Officers of
California (CPOC), to calculate the cost to the state of
housing and supervising DJF-eligible youth offenders, or
subject to supervision by the DJF, for the 2012-13 fiscal
year.
6)Requires, by July 1, 2014 and every July 1 thereafter, the
DOF, in consultation with the CDCR, the BSCC, and the CPOC, to
calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising
DJF-eligible youth offenders who were in the custody of, or
subject to supervision by the DJF in the immediate preceding
fiscal year.
AB 915
Page 2
7)Requires, starting July 1, 2014 and by July 1 of each year
thereafter, the DOF to calculate the savings to the state, if
savings are realized, by subtracting the amount calculated
annually pursuant to provision 5 above from the amount
calculated pursuant to provision 4 above. Requires the
Controller to transfer 75% of this amount from the General
Fund to counties' Youth Offender Block Grant Part B accounts
as follows:
a) Requires, by January 1, 2015, and no later than January
1 of each year thereafter, 40% to be allocated
proportionally and directly, calculated as specified, to
those counties with net decreases in new admissions of
juvenile offenders to the DJF over the 2012-13 fiscal-year
baseline new commitments, with the purpose of increasing
the capacity of those counties with net decreases of youth
admissions to DJF to provide supervision and rehabilitation
services using best practices, as defined;
b) Requires, by January 1, 2015, and no later than January
1 of each year thereafter, 40% to be available to fund a
competitive block grant program, overseen by the BSCC and
open to all counties irrespective of a showing of decreases
in new admissions to the DJF, to increase capacity for
serving the county's population of DJF-eligible youth,
using best practices, as defined; and
c) Requires, by January 1, 2015, and no later than January
1 of each year thereafter, 20% to be available to fund
technical assistance, including staff positions within the
BSCC, for counties in the ongoing implementation of best
practices, as defined, for serving DJF-eligible youth, or
for those counties developing programs to serve a
combination of DJF-eligible and non-DJF-eligible youth
offenders. Requires the BSCC to oversee the development of
a request for proposal process for the technical assistance
funding.
d) Requires, notwithstanding the above, that if the amount
allocated to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B
account for any given year is $3,000,000 or less, all of
the funds in the account shall be available to fund
technical assistance for counties in the ongoing
implementation of best practices for serving DJF-eligible
AB 915
Page 3
youth, or for those counties developing programs to serve a
combination of DJF-eligible and non-DJF-eligible youth
offenders.
8)Prohibits a county from receiving any funding pursuant to this
bill if discretionary prosecutorial direct filings to adult
court, as specified, for that county increase by more than 5%
from the 2012-13 fiscal-year baseline.
9)Authorizes the chief probation officer to use funds allocated
to the Youth Offender Block Grant Part B account 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.
10)Requires that in any fiscal year for which a county receives
money to be expended for the implementation of this bill, the
moneys, including any interest, are to be made available to
the chief probation officer, by the juvenile justice
coordinating council, as defined, of that county, within 30
days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund, only for
the purposes improving local probation supervision practices
and capacity to serve DJF-eligible youth offenders, utilizing
best practices.
11)Requires, no later than 15 months following the initial
receipt of funding, the chief probation officer to prepare and
submit a comprehensive report, which includes specified
information, 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.
Requires the chief probation officer, within two weeks of
approval by the juvenile justice coordinating council, to
submit the report to the BSCC.
12)Authorizes the BSCC to enforce violations, as specified, of
grant requirements or direct allocations with suspensions or
cancellations of grant funds.
13)States that the moneys appropriated pursuant to this bill
shall supplement, but not supplant, any other state or county
appropriation for the juvenile justice coordinating council,
the chief probation officer, or any other county funding
sources not expressly specified in this bill.
AB 915
Page 4
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the Youth Offender Block Grant Program, the
purpose of which is to enhance the capacity of local
communities to implement an effective continuum of response to
juvenile crime and delinquency. (Welfare and Institutions
Code (WIC) Section 1950.)
2)Establishes the Youth Offender Block Grant Fund, which is
required to be used to enhance the capacity of probation,
mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments
to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services
to specified youthful offenders. (WIC Section 1951.)
3)Establishes the Division of Juvenile Facilities within CDCR.
(Penal Code Section 6001.)
4)Provides that if a minor is adjudged a ward of the court, as
specified, the court may do any of the following:
a) Order the ward to make restitution, to pay a fine up to
$250 for deposit in the county treasury if the court finds
that the minor has the financial ability to pay the fine,
or to participate in uncompensated work programs;
b) Commit the ward to a sheltered-care facility;
c) Order that the ward and his or her family or guardian
participate in a program of professional counseling as
arranged and directed by the probation officer as a
condition of continued custody of the ward; or
d) Commit the ward to the DJF, if the ward has committed a
specified violent, serious, or sexual offense and is not
otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJF. (WIC Section
731.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Counties are
consistently serving a higher number of DJF-eligible youth
offenders locally each month, sending 60% fewer youth
AB 915
Page 5
offenders to DJF over the last two years, yet are doing so
without any additional state resources or accountability. The
state has saved $75 million from this shrinking system in the
last two years alone, but those savings have not been returned
to counties for capacity building, even as the state has
imposed a new $24,000 fee for each new DJF commitment. As of
December 2012, the population in the state's youth
correctional facilities, the Division of Juvenile Facilities
(DJF), was below 800 youth, down from a peak of 10,000 in
1996, at a cost to the state of over $200 million annually.
"This legislation does not prohibit counties from committing
new youth offenders to the state's Division of Juvenile
Facilities (DJF); but rather creates a new funding stream for
those counties who are currently opting to supervise
DJF-eligible youth locally, and those who would do so in the
future.
"Counties are uniquely positioned to deliver successful
interventions for high-need and high-risk youth offenders by
adapting and enhancing existing programmatic and physical
resources. Local jurisdictions are well situated to develop
or enhance partnerships with community-based service
providers, and can maximize available funding streams for
juvenile justice populations that cannot be utilized in
custodial settings. Counties are able to deliver
individualized treatment through case management, mental
health services, alcohol and drug counseling, and reentry
supports, with cultural competency and trauma-informed care.
"AB 915 builds on the demonstrated success of Senate Bill (SB)
678, The California Community Corrections Performance
Incentives Act of 2009 (Leno). SB 678 created a
performance-based funding formula to strengthen county
probation best practices with individuals subject to adult
felony probation supervision. This legislation has
significantly reduced revocations to state prison, netting the
state cost savings, which are then distributed to support
county best practices."
2)The Reduction of Division of Juvenile Justice Supervision of
Youth : Since the implementation of SB 91 (Committee on Budget
and Fiscal Review), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, the number
of juvenile offenders sent to a state youth correctional
facility has dropped significantly. At its peak, DJF housed
AB 915
Page 6
over 100,000 juvenile offenders. As of 2012, there were less
than 1,100 juveniles housed within a DJF facility. (The
2012-13 Budget: Completing Juvenile Justice Realignment,
Legislative Analyst's Office (February 15, 2012).) According
to the LAO:
The Legislature has enacted various measures which
realigned to counties a significant share of
responsibility for managing juvenile offenders. Under
current law, only juveniles adjudicated for a serious,
violent, or sex offense can be sent to state
facilities by the juvenile courts. As a result, 99
percent of juvenile offenders are housed or supervised
by counties.
(Ibid.)
In January 2011, the Governor released his proposed 2011-12,
which included a significant realignment of correctional
activities, including shifting all juvenile offenders to the
county level and closing all youth correctional activities.
In 2007, the state transferred the responsibility for
lower-level offenders to the counties. The state is now left
with a very small and expensive system of providing services
to the most violent juvenile wards at a cost exceeding
$200,000 per ward per year." (2011-12 Governor's Budget
Summary (January 10, 2011) p. 132.) In February 2011,
counties began assume parole supervision of juvenile
offenders, under the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of
2010.
3)Argument in Support : According to the Prison Law Office ,
"California counties are steadily decreasing their new
admissions of youth offenders to the state's youth
correctional system and assuming greater local responsibility
for these youth, without necessary support or accountability
from the state. AB 915 channels the savings from these
decreased DJF commitments to promote county best practices.
"Through our juvenile justice policy work with counties like
Stanislaus and Sacramento, we know that counties are uniquely
positioned to deliver successful interventions for high-need
justice-involved youth offenders. With the right support,
AB 915
Page 7
local justice administrators are well situated to develop or
enhance partnerships with other governmental agencies and
community-based service providers, and can maximize available
funding streams for juvenile justice populations, which are
otherwise unavailable in custodial settings. They are able to
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)Argument in Opposition : According to the California District
Attorneys Association , "this bill would discourage the use of
a commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) as a
dispositional option.
"Over the last several years, the population of DJF has
dropped precipitously, due in large part to the realignment of
many types of youthful offenders. ? Today, only juveniles who
are sec offenders or whose current offense is listed in
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707(b) can be sent to
DJF. In other words, only the most serious and violent
offenders may be considered for commitment to state
facilities; counties provide the lion's share of services to
juveniles.
"Further, we are very concerned about the bill's provision
that disqualifies a county for funding if discretionary
prosecutorial direct filings to adult court increase by more
than 5 percent. It is inappropriate to fiscally penalize a
county based on lawful charging decisions made by the district
attorney. Additionally, in a county that sends very few
juvenile offenders to DJF, even the slightest uptick in
juvenile criminality could prejudice a county in terms of the
funding contemplated by the bill."
5)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 678 (Leno), Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009, authorized
each county to establish a Community Corrections
Performance Incentive Fund and authorized the state to
allocate money into that fund to be used for specified
purposes relating to improving local probation supervision
practices and capacities.
b) SB 81 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review),
AB 915
Page 8
Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, established the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Program to enhance the capacity of
county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative
and supervision services to youthful offenders.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California State Council of the Service Employees International
Union
Children's Defense Fund-California
Community Coalition
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Drug Policy Alliance
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Center for Youth Law
Prison Law Office
Public Counsel
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Youth Law Center
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744