BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 2055
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
1020 N Street, Suite 524
(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478
.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
.
Bill No: SB 2055
Author: Costa (D), et al
Amended: 8/25/98
Vote: 27
.
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/21/98
AYES: Vasconcellos, Rainey, Burton, Kopp, McPherson,
Polanco, Schiff
NOT VOTING: Watson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 5/26/98
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Burton, Dills, Hughes, Johnson,
Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, O'Connell,
Vasconcellos
NOT VOTING: Calderon
SENATE FLOOR : 37-0, 5/28/98
AYES: Alpert, Ayala, Brulte, Burton, Calderon, Costa,
Dills, Greene, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes, Hurtt,
Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight,
Kopp, Leslie, Lockyer, Maddy, McPherson, Monteith,
Mountjoy, O'Connell, Peace, Polanco, Rainey, Rosenthal,
Schiff, Sher, Solis, Thompson, Vasconcellos, Watson,
Wright
NOT VOTING: Craven, Lewis
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-2, 8/28/98 - See last page for vote
.
SUBJECT : Youth Authority commitments: county payment
costs
SOURCE : California State Association of Counties
.
DIGEST : This bill caps the fee currently paid by
counties to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for
committing a youth to the CYA. Specifically, this bill:
1.Provides that the Department of the Youth Authority must
present to each county, not more frequently than monthly,
a statement of per capita institutional cost.
2.Defines "per capita institutional cost" to mean the
lesser of the current per capita institutional cost of
the department, or the per capita institutional cost
charged counties as of January 1, 1997.
Assembly Amendments delete Senate language modifying the
current sliding scale provisions regarding county payments
to Youth Authority and instead provide for a per capita
institutional cost approach.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, effective January 1, 1997,
counties must pay the state $150 (instead of the former
$25) for each minor committed to the Department of the
Youth Authority. (Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC")
sec. 912.) In addition, counties must contribute a
"sliding scale" contribution for Youth Authority
commitments based upon the category of the offender; the
sliding scale ranges from 50% of the per capita
institutional cost of the Youth Authority for category 5
offenses (category 1 being the most serious out of 7
categories), 75% for category 6 offenses, and 100% for
category 7 offenses. (WIC sec. 912.5.)
Sliding Scale; History and Effect
In 1996, the Legislature enacted legislation increasing the
fees that counties pay to the State for commitment of
juvenile offenders to CYA. (SB 681(Hurtt) (Ch. 6/96).)
These new fees went into effect in January of last year.
Before SB 681, counties paid the State $25 -- an amount set
in 1961-- each month for each offender sent to CYA. SB 681
increased this fee to $150 per offender per month, and also
enacted a "sliding fee scale" for offenders sent by
counties to CYA. As explained by the Legislative Analyst's
office:
When a ward is sent to the Youth Authority, the Youthful
Offender Parole Board assigns the ward a category number
-- from 1 to 7 -- based on the seriousness of the
commitment offense. Generally, wards in categories 1
through 4 are considered the most serious offenders,
while categories 5 through 7 are less serious. Under
this legislation, counties (will) pay 100 percent of the
costs of wards in category 7 (the least serious offense
category), 75 percent of the costs for wards in category
6, and 50 percent of the costs for wards in category 5.
Counties would pay the proposed $150 per month fee for
all other commitments. Wards in categories 5, 6 and 7
generally spend less than 18 months in Youth Authority
institutions. Similar types of offenders who are placed
in county-run facilities often spend less than six
months in the facilities.
In 1994, the Legislative Analyst's office reviewed CYA
placements and discovered that 24 counties at that time
sent primarily serious offenders to CYA; in contrast, LAO
found that "20 counties' total commitments to the Youth
Authority consist (at that time) of 50 percent or more of
less serious offenders." The legislation imposing a
sliding scale fee for CYA commitments was intended to
address this situation.
In its analysis of the 1998-99 Budget, the Legislative
Analyst's Office concluded that preliminary data indicates
sliding scale has been successful for the state:
Commitment data suggest that the new sliding fees have
had the desired impacts. The 1997 commitments of wards
who are in categories 5, 6, and 7 declined almost 40
percent when compared to 1996. Commitments of category
7 wards, for whom counties paid full cost, decreased by
52 percent. There were only 26 commitments in this
category to the Youth Authority in 1997.
We believe that as a result of the new sliding fee,
counties will continue to have a fiscal incentive to use
less costly local options rather than the Youth
Authority, especially for the least serious offenders,
where the county would pay most of the cost of
commitment. Several counties have informed us that in
response to the new fees they have developed local
alternatives to Youth Authority placements. These new
placement options include the creation of new ranch and
camp beds and the use of other nonresidential options,
such as day-treatment centers, for less serious
offenders. As we describe below, counties have received
significant new federal funds for creating services for
these types of offenders. The budget proposes to
further increase these funds. (Legislative Analyst's
Office, Analysis of the 1998-99 Budget Bill)
As explained by the author, counties argue sliding scale
has greatly increased the fees they must pay for Youth
Authority commitments. According to a January 1998 survey
of 44 counties conducted by CSAC, their total Youth
Authority fees increased 909 percent between 1995-96 and
1997-98; at the same time, their low-level offender
commitments decreased 51.3 percent.
This bill would change the formula upon which sliding scale
fees to the State is based. Instead of basing fees on the
per capita institutional costs for Youth Authority, this
bill would base the fees on the marginal costs for Youth
Authority. Currently, the per capita cost of Youth
Authority is about $32,000; the marginal cost -- that is,
the cost to add each additional ward to an institution --
is about $17,000. Counties argue the per capita formula
unfairly penalizes counties: as the Youth Authority
population decreases, the per capita costs increase,
thereby increasing the sliding scale fees charged to
counties which go directly to the State.
The proposed change to the formula would greatly reduce
sliding scale fees paid to the state. However, under the
bill, the counties would have to pay an additional amount
to a newly-created local juvenile justice trust fund. In
this way, although this bill would decrease sliding scale
payments to the State, it would not decrease the overall
amount counties would have to pay under the entire sliding
scale scheme because of the county juvenile trust fund this
bill would mandate.
Background: State Funds for Local Juvenile Programs
In its analysis of the 1998-99 Budget, the Legislative
Analyst's Office stated:
In response to federal welfare reform, the California
Legislature established the California Work Opportunity
and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program in 1997.
The CalWORKS law specifically provided that TANF funds
could be used to provide probation services to juvenile
offenders. In the current year, counties received $141
million in TANF block grant funds for juvenile offenders
under the care of probation departments. In addition,
counties with ranches and camps received an additional
$33 million in TANF funds for support of these juvenile
facilities. Consequently, a total of $174 million in
TANF was allocated to county probation departments.
The budget also continues the $33 million from TANF for
counties with juvenile ranches and camps. As a result,
the budget proposes allocating $200 million from TANF to
county probation departments to provide services to
juvenile offenders. As a result of the TANF funds,
counties have a source of funds to either defray
whatever costs they might incur as a consequence of the
new Youth Authority fees or develop alternatives to
Youth Authority placements. Furthermore, the significant
amount of funding available under the TANF probation
grants should allow counties to continue to decrease
their reliance on placements in the Youth Authority and
accordingly, reduce future sliding scale fee costs.
Notwithstanding the overall decrease in Youth Authority
placements, the allocation of $200 million to counties
for juvenile offenders is substantially more than the
estimated $43 million that counties will reimburse the
state for Youth Authority placements.
Prior legislation :
AB 2312 (Woods) passed the Senate 39-0 on 8/29/96 and was
vetoed by the Governor.
Governor's Veto Message:
"By relieving counties of some of their responsibility
to pay a portion of the cost for committing wards to the
Youth Authority, this bill would increase General Fund
expenditures by millions of dollars over the next six
fiscal years. The State is already providing a
considerable amount of funding to counties in support of
local juvenile justice programs, including $33 million
per year for county probation camps. In further support
of county efforts, I recently signed SB 1760, which
provides $50 million in grant funds to be awarded to
county agencies for the prevention of juvenile crime and
treatment of youthful offenders. These funds, not
anticipated at the time this bill was introduced, would
appear to provide more first year relief than AB 2312.
"I am also concerned with the provision that would allow
a juvenile ordered into the custody of the county
juvenile correctional administrator pursuant to a
community-based punishment plan, to be placed in the
Department of Youth Authority under terms and conditions
determined by the county administrator rather than state
authorities. This bill would appear to obscure the
authority of (the Youth Authority and the Youthful
Offender Parole Board) by allowing the county
correctional administrator to determine the length of
stay and the terms and conditions of the placement.
"I am not unalterably opposed to providing additional
relief, of the magnitude sought here, to county juvenile
authorities. I have directed my staff to work with the
author to explore alternatives to disruption of the
formula under which counties contribute to the costs of
the Youth Authority."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Fund
CYA sliding scale fee
loss of revenues $ 1,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000General
LJJPD revenues $ 1,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000Local
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/22/98) (Unable to reverify at time
of writing)
California State Association of Counties (source)
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors
Urban Counties Caucus
Merced County
San Diego County
City and County of San Francisco
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states:
SB 681 (Hurtt, 1996) imposed a fee schedule upon counties
for "low level" offenders sent to the California Youth
Authority (CYA). The intent of the legislation was to
provide a monetary disincentive for sending "low level"
juvenile offenders to the CYA. Clearly, the Legislature
wanted counties to treat, punish and house these offenders
at the local level.
The related cost to counties for CYA has increased from
just under $2 million in FY 1995-96 to a projected $20-30
million for FY 1997-98. While costs have increased 10-15
fold, low level commitments to the CYA decreased
approximately 53.2 percent during that time. . . .
SB 2055 would redirect a portion of the fees currently sent
to CYA and return the money to the county of commitment to
be placed in a Local Juvenile Justice Program Development
Fund. Moneys in the fund would be earmarked for juvenile
probation programs and facilities -- such as probation
camps and ranches -- dedicated to the punishment, treatment
and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.
Given that the per capita cost CYA charges counties has
continually increased, (as counties send fewer kids to CYA,
their per kid cost increases) SB 2055 would also freeze the
actual per capita costs CYA could charge counties at the
January 1, 1997 level.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ackerman, Aguiar, Alby, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn,
Baca, Baldwin, Battin, Baugh, Bordonaro, Bowen, Bowler,
Brewer, Bustamante, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo,
Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Escutia, Figueroa, Firestone,
Frusetta, Gallegos, Goldsmith, Granlund, Havice,
Hertzberg, Honda, House, Kaloogian, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl,
Kuykendall, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Margett, Mazzoni,
Migden, Miller, Morrissey, Morrow, Murray, Napolitano,
Olberg, Oller, Ortiz, Perata, Poochigian, Prenter,
Pringle, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Strom-Martin, Sweeney,
Thompson, Torlakson, Vincent, Washington, Wayne, Wildman,
Woods, Wright, Villaraigosa
NOES: Martinez, McClintock
NOT VOTING: Brown, Floyd, Machado, Pacheco, Papan,
Richter, Takasugi, Thomson
RJG:jk/sl 8/28/98 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****