BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
999 (Skinner)
Hearing Date: 07/13/2009 Amended: 06/30/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
5-2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 999 revises the disciplinary system at the
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Specifically, this bill
would:
1) Delete the authority of DJJ to extend a ward's projected
board date (PBD), as specified, and instead provide that
DJJ shall not extend or postpone a ward's projected board
date.
2) Define "satisfactory performance" and performance credit
guidelines.
3) Require DJJ to provide a system where wards can earn
time credits based on programming and good behavior, with
those credits being subject to forfeiture as a consequence
of disciplinary action, instead of the current system of
"time-adds" for disciplinary issues.
4) Require a ward's PBD to be adjusted to reflect net
credits, no less than every six months.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Create/implement
new credit system $40 $40
$0 General
Reduction in DJJ lengths of stay Potential substantial
savings General
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill will incur immediate costs related to
increased workload to establish the proposed credit program,
update materials and procedures, and provide training to
employees. It is likely that these costs can be absorbed with
overtime for existing staff, as it is a one-time expense, and
involves developing a procedure that would affect 1,700 wards
total - the population of a medium-sized high school - in 8
small facilities.
Ongoing implementation is unlikely to result in additional costs
because the staffing duties of individuals who currently have
the authority to issue credits and sanctions or to evaluate
juveniles' parole readiness in some capacity, are substantially
similar to the responsibilities of implementing the current
disciplinary system.* The current disciplinary system allows DJJ
staff to grant credits toward moving up a ward's BPD, or to
impose a "time-add" (moving the BPD back) as a sanction.
When a new ward enters a DJJ facility a BPD is set at intake,
depending on court determined crimes and various circumstances.
A BPD is the date at which, notwithstanding disciplinary
sanctions or credits earned, the ward would receive a board
hearing. Most often, the ward is released on that date, but it
is not necessarily the case that the ward will be released to
parole by the board. Under the current system, staff
Page 2
AB 999 (Skinner)
can add time to a ward's sentence administratively, by
postponing the BPD (although, not to exceed the court-ordered
maximum confinement time). Thus, discipline is handled primarily
by staff, so when a ward is actually granted a BPD, it is likely
that parole will be approved (because if the ward were a
continued disciplinary problem the BPD would simply keep being
postponed).
The average the average length-of-stay - based on an
indeterminate sentencing system - is almost three years. A
time-add effectively adding time to their sentence, to the
degree that the ward would have been released. On average,
state-wide, time-adds result in increased time served of 3.7
months per juvenile ward. At an annual incarceration cost of
$256,000 per ward, the time-adds cost the state more than $134
million over the past year (May 2008 to May 2009).
This bill prohibits time-adds that would postpone the BPD past
its original date set at intake. Based on last year's average,
if every ward kept his or her original hearing date, the state
would save about $134 million each year if the wards were
released on the original date of the BPD. However, because this
bill only allows for the BPD to be moved up, the only wards who
would keep their original PBD (which is the maximum time to
which credits can be rescinded) would be wards who had continued
disciplinary problems. Thus, it is less likely that the board
would grant them parole on that date. The board does not have to
grant parole and, upon denying parole, can set a new BPD as far
out as the maximum confinement time.
The savings actually generated by this bill is unknown, because
it would depend on the decisions of the board. It is unclear
whether eligibility for consideration earlier would result in
earlier release, and to what degree. It is also unknown whether
the juveniles who are paroled would have been done so by that
date under the current system. The savings, is achieved,
however, would be substantial. Every ward that was paroled at
the original BPD instead of the average time-add of 3.7 months
would save the state approximately $85,000, more than offsetting
the cost of the establishing the new procedure.
* Under the current system, every ward has a treatment team s/he
has been assigned to which meets with the ward frequently, and
enters program credits and sanctions are into the Ward
Information Network System (WINS). Every 60-120 days, the
treatment team meets with the ward to determine the ward's needs
for rehabilitation and verifies credits/sanctions. If there are
sufficient credits to bring the PBD to within a year of the last
annual review, the treatment team can request an earlier PBD.
This bill requires the PBD be adjusted at least every 120 days,
which is currently a function of the treatment team. There is no
statutory requirement to have a hearing or formal review to
adjust move the BPD up from the original date, which is the only
change that could be made under this bill.