BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1031 (Hancock) - Juvenile justice information system
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: April 6, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 2, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1031 would require the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to develop a design structure and implementation plan for the
California Juvenile Justice Information System (CJJIS) by
January 1, 2018. This bill would require the DOJ to establish
and implement the CJJIS on or before July 1, 2019. This bill
appropriates an unspecified sum from the General Fund to the DOJ
for the purpose of funding the development of the design
structure and implementation plan for the CJJIS.
Fiscal
Impact:
CJJIS development and plan : One-time General Fund
appropriation of an unspecified amount for the DOJ to develop
structure and implementation plan. The estimated cost to the
DOJ is unknown, but potentially in excess of $1 million.
CJJIS implementation : Unknown, potentially major one-time
costs in the millions of dollars and ongoing costs in the
millions of dollars (General Fund) to the DOJ for new
SB 1031 (Hancock) Page 1 of
?
infrastructure, enabling and supporting integrated statewide
data collection and reporting by agencies to the system,
including additional staffing, training, data collection,
analysis, monitoring, upgrades, storage for the operation and
maintenance of the system.
Local agency reporting : Potentially major one-time and
ongoing costs for local agency reporting (including but not
limited to law enforcement, county probation, county child
welfare agencies), potentially in the millions of dollars
annually statewide, given the breadth of information to be
reported into the system. To the extent the new system
requires local agencies to upgrade their existing IT
infrastructure to enable integration, additional costs could
be substantial. The manner in which DOJ solicits participation
from agencies to report data could impact whether these costs
remain a local responsibility, require state reimbursement
through the state mandates process (General Fund), require
state funding pursuant to Proposition 30*, or possibly require
funding from a combination of all three. To the extent local
agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate,
agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General
Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the
Commission on State Mandates' statewide cost estimate for
Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible
reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over
50 percent of local agencies reporting.
Courts : Potentially minor to significant one-time and ongoing
costs to enable integrated reporting of required data for this
system.
*Proposition 30 (2012) exempts the State from mandate
reimbursement for realigned programs including the provision of
"public safety services" such as child welfare services, and
providing services to and supervision of juvenile offenders.
Additionally, the related reporting responsibilities of local
agencies for these public safety services are exempt from
mandate reimbursement. However, legislation enacted after
September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the
costs already borne by a local agency for public safety services
apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State
provides annual funding for the cost increase. The provisions of
Proposition 30 have not been interpreted through the formal
court process to date, however, to the extent the local agency
costs resulting from this measure are determined to be
SB 1031 (Hancock) Page 2 of
?
applicable under the provisions of Proposition 30, local
agencies would not be obligated to provide the level of service
required by the bill above the level for which funding is
provided by the State.
Background: Although existing law requires the DOJ to collect data
pertaining to the juvenile justice system for criminal history
and statistical purposes, as reported by the California Juvenile
Justice Data Working Group within the Board of State and
Community Corrections (BSCC) in its report entitled, "Rebuilding
California's Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to
Improve Data Collection, Performance Measures, and Outcomes for
California Youth," California falls woefully short of what is
needed:
Increasingly across the nation, state and local juvenile
justice systems are expanding data collection capacity to
support effective and evidence-based practices and to
promote positive outcomes for justice-involved youth.
Respected national organizations-like the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the
Council of State Governments-have joined with leaders in
philanthropy to advance technology and new outcome
measures in juvenile justice. Several factors help to
explain this growth of interest in data-driven approaches
to juvenile justice, including:
The need for evidence to guide the adoption of practices
that are safe, effective and unbiased;
The need to control justice system costs and the
corresponding need to identify cost-effective
alternatives to incarceration;
An expanding national body of research on adolescent
development that is changing federal and state juvenile
justice laws and practices, and the corresponding need to
use data and evaluation to adapt programs and practices
accordingly; and
Recognition that the fundamental purpose of the juvenile
justice system is rehabilitation and that, in order to
measure rehabilitation, juvenile justice systems must
have adequate capacity to monitor youth outcomes.
Regrettably, California has allowed its juvenile data
systems to fall into a pattern of long-term decline. The
SB 1031 (Hancock) Page 3 of
?
technology supporting the state's main juvenile justice
data bank is antiquated and cannot be upgraded. There is
no state-level capacity to track recidivism or other
important outcomes for justice system youth. California's
state-level juvenile justice data banks are split between
different agencies and are not integrated by design with
county-level data systems. An overarching problem is that
California has not made a significant state investment in
modernizing its juvenile justice data capacity for more
than two decades. While state data systems in other
child-serving realms-like education and child
welfare-have benefitted from major state investment and
upgrades to meet contemporary needs, this has not been
the case for a California juvenile justice system that
processes more than 100,000 children as arrest,
supervision or confinement cases each year.
Proposed Law:
This bill requires the DOJ to develop, with advice from the
Chief Probation Officers of California, the Judicial Council,
advocates for juveniles, and other stakeholders, a design
structure and implementation plan for the CJJIS on or before
January 1, 2018. Additionally, this bill:
Requires the DOJ to establish and implement the CJJIS on
or before July 1, 2019.
Provides that the purpose of the CJJIS is to develop and
maintain statewide statistical information, including
information collected and shared by counties, which
promotes the operational and program effectiveness of state
and local juvenile justice systems in California in
reducing the incidence of juvenile crime and recidivism
among juvenile offenders.
Requires the information system to be developed by the
DOJ to include, but not be limited to, the following
features:
o Providing for the integrated and user-friendly
collection and reporting of statewide juvenile justice
SB 1031 (Hancock) Page 4 of
?
data reflecting key demographic and case processing
characteristics of children who come into contact with
the juvenile justice system.
o Providing data relating to the effectiveness
of programs, practices, or other prevention and
intervention strategies employed to respond to
juvenile crime and reduce recidivism among juvenile
offenders.
o Facilitating and supporting the scope and
quality of data describing the characteristics and
needs of youthful offenders and the juvenile justice
programs and practices necessary to effectively manage
state and local resources invested in the juvenile
justice system.
o Supporting local juvenile justice agencies in
developing and maintaining local juvenile justice data
systems and in the collection and submission of local
juvenile justice data to state agencies.
Provides that in establishing the technology
infrastructure for the development of the CJJIS, the DOJ is
to adopt a set of goals and objectives consistent with this
section, to be reflected in a system design which supports
the direction for the information system.
Appropriates an unspecified sum from the General Fund to
the DOJ for the purpose of funding the development of a
design structure and implementation plan for the CJJIS.
Staff
Comments: Given the size and complexity of the information
system to be developed pursuant to the provisions of this bill,
the Department of Technology's California Project Management
SB 1031 (Hancock) Page 5 of
?
Office (CA-PMO) may potentially be an appropriate entity to
engage as a resource. The CA-PMO provides centralized project
management of IT projects so that strategic benefits are
realized through standardized frameworks, education, training,
and tools and techniques based on proven best practices and
lessons learned.
While the CA-PMO was recently formed and is currently focusing
on developing and testing its project management process and
managing only a limited number of low and moderate complexity IT
projects, to the extent they are able to take on more projects
and higher complexity projects in the near future may be an
option to consider.
Recommended
Amendments: To reduce costs, the author may wish to consider an
amendment to delete the establishment and implementation of the
program by July 1, 2019, and instead limit the bill to the
development of a design structure and implementation plan by the
DOJ. The author may wish consider an additional amendment to
require the DOJ to develop a detailed cost analysis of the
project, both for design and implementation, to supplement the
plan, to be submitted with the plan to the Legislature for
review and future consideration.
-- END --