BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
0
6
SB 1067 (Oropeza) 7
As Amended March 23, 2010
Hearing date: April 6, 2010
Government and Welfare and Institutions Codes
AA:dl
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
TRACKING RECIDIVISM FOR THE DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DIVISION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BE REQUIRED TO TRACK AND
REPORT THE RECIDIVISM RATE FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS COMMITTED TO ITS
JURISDICTION AFTER THEY ARE RELEASED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to require the Division of Juvenile
Justice to track and report the recidivism rate for juvenile
offenders committed to its jurisdiction after they are released,
as specified.
Current law provides that there is created in state government
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to be headed
by a secretary, who shall be appointed by the Governor, subject
to Senate confirmation, and shall serve at the pleasure of the
Governor. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
consists of Adult Operations, Adult Programs, Juvenile Justice,
the Corrections Standards Authority, the Board of Parole
Hearings, the State Commission on Juvenile Justice, the Prison
Industry Authority, and the Prison Industry Board. (Government
Code 12838.)
Current law further provides that there is created within the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under the Chief
Deputy Secretary for Juvenile Justice, the Division of Juvenile
Facilities, the Division of Juvenile Programs, and the Division
of Juvenile Parole Operations. Each division shall be headed by
a chief, who shall be appointed by the Governor, at the
recommendation of the secretary, subject to Senate confirmation,
who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor. (Government
Code 12838.3. )
This bill would clarify this provision to expressly provide for
the Division of Juvenile Justice, ("DJJ") with related
conforming changes, as specified.
Current law provides that the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, DJJ, has jurisdiction over all educational
training and treatment institutions now or hereafter established
and maintained in the state as correctional schools for the
reception of wards of the juvenile court and other persons
committed to the department. (Welfare and Institutions Code
("WIC") 1000.)
Current law generally provides that every person committed to
DJJ by a juvenile court shall, except as provided, be discharged
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageC
upon the expiration of a two-year period of control or when the
person reaches his or her 21st birthday, whichever occurs later,
as specified. (WIC 1769(a).)
Current law further provides that every person committed to DJJ
by a juvenile court who has been found to be a person described
in Section 602 by reason of the violation of specified serious
or violent offenses,<1> shall be discharged upon the expiration
of a two-year period of control or when the person reaches his
or her 25th birthday, whichever occurs later, as specified.
(WIC 1769(b); see also WIC 1770, 1771.)
Current law provides that a ward committed to DJJ<2> "may not be
held in physical confinement for a period of time in excess of
the maximum period of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an
adult convicted of the offense or offenses that brought or
continued the minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court. A ward committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities
also may not be held in physical confinement for a period of
time in excess of the maximum term of physical confinement set
by the court based upon the facts and circumstances of the
matter or matters that brought or continued the ward under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may not exceed the
maximum period of adult confinement as determined pursuant to
this section. This section does not limit the power of the
Board of Parole Hearings to retain the ward on parole status for
---------------------------
<1> Specifically, any of the offenses listed in subdivision
(b), paragraph (2) of subdivision (d), or subdivision (e) of
Section 707.
<2> Technically, the code refers to the "Division of Juvenile
Facilities." Colloquially, the institutions formerly known as
the "California Youth Authority" also are called "DJJ."
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageD
the period permitted by Section 1769." (WIC 731(c).<3>)
Current law provides that the following powers and duties shall
be exercised and performed by the DJJ: return of persons to the
court of commitment for redisposition by the court,
determination of offense category, setting of parole
consideration dates, conducting annual reviews, treatment
program orders, institution placements, furlough placements,
return of nonresident persons to the jurisdiction of the state
of legal residence, disciplinary decisionmaking, and referrals
pursuant to Section 1800. (WIC 1719 (c).)
Current law provides that the following powers and duties shall
be exercised and performed by the Juvenile Parole Board:
discharges of commitment, orders to parole and conditions
thereof, revocation or suspension of parole, and disciplinary
appeals. (WIC 1719(a).)
Current law provides that the Juvenile Parole Board of Parole
Hearings, according to standardized review and appeal procedures
established by the board in policy and regulation and subject to
specified powers and duties, may do any of the following (WIC
1766(a)):
a)Permit the ward his or her liberty under supervision and upon
conditions it believes are best designed for the protection of
the public.
b) Order his or her confinement under conditions it believes
best designed for the protection of the public, except as
specified. Nothing in this subdivision limits the power of the
board to retain the minor or the young adult on parole status
for the period permitted by the maximum period and age of
confinement.
c) Order reconfinement or renewed release under supervision as
often as conditions indicate to be desirable.
d) Revoke or modify any parole or disciplinary appeal order.
e) Modify an order of discharge if conditions indicate that
---------------------------
<3> See also In re Carlos E. (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1529,
1542 ( ". . . (T)he juvenile court must determine the maximum
period of confinement to (DJJ) based on the facts and
circumstances, this maximum may not be more than that for a
comparable adult, but may be less. The maximum period of
confinement set by the court is not a determinate term, it is
the ceiling on the amount of time that a minor may be confined
in (DJJ), and recognizes that the committing court has an
interest in and particularized knowledge of the minors it
commits to (DJJ)."
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageE
such modification is desirable and when that modification is to
the benefit of the person committed to the division.
f) Discharge him or her from its control when it is satisfied
that discharge is consistent with the protection of the public.
This bill would require DJJ to track recidivism rates of
youthful offenders under the jurisdiction of the department, and
to report those rates to the appropriate legislative committees
once per year.
This bill would provide that the following terms would apply for
its purposes:
(1) "Recidivism" means an adjudication, adjudication
withheld, or an adult conviction for an offense committed
within 36 months of completing a program.
(2) "Recidivism rates" include annual data on parolee
rearrests by gender, race, and offense severity.
This bill would require DJJ to "create an annual report that
includes the recidivism rate data. On January 1, 2012, and each
January 1 thereafter, the division shall deliver the report to
the Legislature and post it on the department's Internet Web
site."
This bill would require that the recidivism rate reports
"include recidivism rate data at 12-, 24-, and 36-month
intervals, and shall distinguish misdemeanor arrests, felony
arrests, and felony arrests under Section 707."
This bill would sunset its report requirements "on January 1,
2016, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, and
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageF
would require that a "report to be submitted pursuant to
subdivision (c) shall be submitted in compliance with Section
9795 of the Government Code."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageG
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<4>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
--------------------------
<4> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageH
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
During a Rules Committee hearing dealing with Juvenile
Justice in June 2009, the author was taken aback to
find out that DJJ does not track recidivism rates
within their department, an especially surprising fact
given that each ward costs the state approximately
$250,000 per year. Senator Oropeza requested DJJ
track recidivism rates and report back to the
Committee with their findings by January 31, 2010.
They did so . . . but did not break down the
information with enough specificity to determine
effectiveness of existing programs.
The author remains committed to having DJJ
consistently report on recidivism rates using the same
metrics year in and year out, especially in light of
the astronomical cost per ward in taxpayer dollars.
The simplest and most effective way of guaranteeing
this is to codify the reporting requirement, and have
DJJ deliver this report in January, at the beginning
of legislative deliberations on the budget.
The Little Hoover Commission, in its July 2008 report
( http://www.lhc.ca.gov/ studies/192/report192.pdf )
sums up the problem SB 1067 is attempting to address
thusly: "Californians may fairly ask what they are
getting for this outlay and whether other strategies
can better deliver public safety and youth
rehabilitation." (LHC July 2008 report, page 2).
The measure of any state agency is how well it
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageI
performs with taxpayer money, but it is impossible to
measure agency success if there is no record to
measure it against. The author feels strongly that
finding out basic information on how well DJJ's
programs work is key to rooting out waste and
inefficiencies in state government.
2. Background: DJJ
A recent agenda prepared by Subcommittee 4 for the Senate Budget
and Fiscal Review Committee included the following information
about recidivism with respect to DJJ:
Historically, the recidivism rate of DJJ wards
released has been over 50 percent within two years of
release, and about three-quarters of all releases have
recidivated within three years of release. The
department's standard recidivism
report has not been updated the past two years. The
department reports that it is
developing a revised set of recidivism measures that
will more accurately coincide with how other states
report recidivism.
. . . Based on a review of the national literature,
there is less definitive research about what works in
the area of juvenile corrections than in adult
corrections, for example. However, there is evidence
that certain types of programs can be effective at
reducing rates of reoffending by incarcerated
juveniles. The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)
has conducted meta-analyses of various research
studies from across the nation. Using this data, they
find that several programs not only reduce recidivism,
but also are cost-effective, meaning the fiscal
benefits to taxpayers and crime victims from
preventing new crimes is greater than the cost of
providing the program. These include various types of
treatment and therapy programs, sex offender
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageJ
treatment, and drug courts, for example. Net savings
for such programs, according to WSIPP, can reach as
high as tens of thousands of dollars per participant
for these programs. More generally, research shows
that effective programs follow certain common
principles, including (a) assessing the needs of
offenders and providing individualized treatment, (b)
targeting programs based on the risk of offenders, (c)
making programs responsive to the type of offender
being served, for example based on gender, (d)
measuring the fidelity of how well programs are
implemented, (e) getting family participation, and (f)
selecting, training, and retaining qualified program
providers.
The department is required under Penal Code 2063 to
provide the Legislature with an annual report
regarding various department activities, including
in-prison and parole programs and outcomes, including
recidivism. The report is due to the JLBC by January
10 of each year, and the 2010 report shows that in
2008-09 there were 467 juvenile parolee returns to DJJ
facilities. This represented about 25 percent of the
average daily population of parole, and was a
significant increase over the prior year (16 percent).
In addition, the department has worked in recent
years to implement a standardized tool for tracking
department-wide data on program operations and
outcomes. This tool, called COMPSTAT, identifies some
of the following information on program participation
and outcomes in DJJ Parole (for the 4th quarter of
2009):
Parole Violations. Parolees committed 287 violations
during the quarter (out of an active caseload of 1,495
parolees). About 64 percent of these were for
substance abuse. About 19 percent were for violent
offenses, including domestic violence.
Program Participation. About 30 percent of parolees
are receiving counseling
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageK
services for psychological, sex offender, or substance
abuse issues. About 10
percent are in transition placement beds for these
issues.
Employment. About 22 percent of parolees are
employed full-time, and about 14
percent are employed part-time.
Education. About 56 percent of parolees have a high
school diploma or equivalent. About 21 percent of
parolees are enrolled in an academic or vocational
education program.<5>
3. Available Recidivism Information; This Bill
In a document submission associated with ongoing litigation
relating to conditions in DJJ facilities, DJJ in November of
2009 provided the following information describing 1, 2 and
3-year rates of recidivism for youth released in 2004-2005<6>:
This report additionally states:
In response to the Legislature's current request for
information on how DJJ will define recidivism and how
the Division of Juvenile Parole (DJPO) will measure
success, DJJ has worked with the CDCR Office of
Research to provide a definition of recidivism, which
is listed below.
. . . Recidivist: An individual previously
adjudicated of a serious or violent crime [CA Welfare
and Institutions Code (WIC) 707(b)] or sex crime [CA
Penal Code (PC) 290], committed to California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and
----------------------
<5> Sub.4, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review (March
4, 2010 hearing).
<6> Available online at
http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/OSM13,AppG.pdf.
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageL
released/discharged from CDCR who was subsequently
arrested in California or returned/recommitted to DJJ
or returned/committed to a CDCR adult institution
(prison) during a specified follow-up period of time
(recidivism period) independent of his/her discharge
status on the initial committing offense(s). . . .
(More)
The author may wish to consider revising the definitions in
this bill using some of the approach developed by DJJ recited
above as a model:
1710.5 (a) Division of Juvenile Justice shall track
and report data on the recidivism outcomes and rates
of youthful offenders under its jurisdiction and
control in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
(b) The Division shall collect and report recidivism
outcomes and rates for youthful offenders released on
parole in any calendar year for each of the following
categories, for the follow up period described in
subdivision (c).
1) The number of individuals who have been
released on DJJ parole in each calendar year who are
returned to a DJJ facility for a parole violation
during the follow up period;
2) The number of individuals who have been
released on DJJ parole in each calendar year who are
returned to a DJJ facility on a new commitment for a
subsequent offense during the follow up period;
3) The number of individuals who have been
released on DJJ parole in each calendar year who are
rearrested for a new offense, identified as a felony
or misdemeanor, during the follow up period;
(4) The number of individuals who have been
released on DJJ parole in each calendar year who are
either adjudicated or convicted of a new offense,
identified as a felony or misdemeanor, during the
follow up period.
(c). The follow up period for tracking the recidivism
outcomes and rates described in subdivision (b) shall
be three years, with annual recidivism data to be
collected on the performance of each parolee at 12,
24 and 36 months following release on parole.
(More)
SB 1067 (Oropeza)
PageN
d) The Division of Juvenile Justice shall create an
annual report that includes the recidivism outcomes
and rates described in subdivision (b). The recidivism
rate shall be reported, for each annual calendar year
release cohort, as the percent of those released who
recidivated at 12, 24 and 36 months in each of the
categories described in subdivision (b). On January
1, 2012, and each January 1 thereafter, the division
shall deliver the report to the Legislature and post
it on the department's Internet Web site. . . .
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE?
WILL THIS BILL GENERATE consistent and accurate data on
recidivism for youthful offenders committed to DJJ?
***************