BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 8
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2011
Counsel: Milena Nelson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 8 (Huber) - As Introduced: December 6, 2010
SUMMARY : Prohibits the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from closing any youth correctional
facility within six months of the effective date of this bill.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States that CDCR has announced plans to close the Preston
Youth Correctional Facility (PYCF).
2)States that the process by which PYCF was chosen to be closed
is unclear.
3)States that PYCF is routinely cited as an example for other
facilities and their staff to follow regarding how to properly
rehabilitate and manage the youth offender population, and is
the most compliant with the consent decree resulting from
Farrell v. Cate. Additionally, the closure of PYCF will
require the termination of the Ward Incentive Program, a major
component of the consent decree.
4)States that PYCF is the only facility to provide an open
environment for rehabilitation and offers programs that other
facilities do not provide.
5)States that the James A. Wieden High School at PYCF has a 90%
graduation rate, higher than any other division facility.
6)States that officials from the Division of Juvenile Justice
have testified that closure of PYCF will not have any
immediate cost savings.
7)States that the closure of PYCF will significantly impact the
economy of the surrounding City of Ione and County of Amador.
8)States that the transfer of many juvenile offenders to county
custody necessitates the reduction of the Division of Juvenile
AB 8
Page 2
Facilities (DJF) in order to meet the needs of a smaller
population and budget constraints.
9)States that process used by CDCR to determine the facilities
to be closed should be clear and subject to public scrutiny,
and address the economic impact of the closure.
10)Requires CDCR to maintain activity and staffing levels at all
youth correctional facilities at the level in pace immediately
prior to October 20, 2010. Additionally, CDCR is prohibited
from transferring wards from any facility for the purpose of
decreasing population levels at that facility.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes DJF within CDCR. (Penal Code Section 6001.)
2)States that the purpose of DJF is to protect society from the
consequences of criminal activity by providing for the secure
custody of wards, and to effectively and efficiently operate
and manage facilities housing youthful offenders under the
jurisdiction of CDCR. �Welfare and Institutions Code Section
1710(b)(1).]
3)States that the purpose of the Division of Juvenile Programs
within CDCR is to provide comprehensive education, training,
treatment, and rehabilitative services to youthful offenders
under the jurisdiction of the department that are designed to
promote community restoration, family ties, and accountability
to victims, and to produce youth who become law-abiding and
productive members of society. �Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 1710(b)(2).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Authors Statement : According to the author, "The proposed
closure by CDCR of Preston Youth Facility in Amador County
came with no justification or consideration of the effects on
the employees, wards or surrounding community. The process by
which Preston was selected for closure remains unclear despite
numerous public hearings and requests for information. This
bill will put a temporary halt to the process that CDCR seems
intent on barreling forward without clear regard of the impact
AB 8
Page 3
of the decision. It will give the Legislature and Governor
the time necessary to look deeper into how CDCR is making
decisions about how to meet the needs of a dwindling youth
offender population and a shrinking budget."
2)Background : According to background submitted by the author,
"In October of 2010, CDCR announced that it would be closing
the Preston Youth Correctional Facility in Amador County. The
process by which Preston was selected for closure remains
unclear despite numerous public hearings and requests for
information, including economic impact reports or comparisons
of facilities to justify the selection."
3)The Division of Juvenile Justice has Drastically Reduced :
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, DJJ housed over
100,000 juvenile offenders. Today, there are less than 1,300
juveniles housed within a DJF facility.
In response to the declining youth population, DJF and CDCR have
closed a number of facilities including six youth facilities
and three conservation camps. CDCR has also undergone
"rightsizing", reducing the number of staff positions by 448
and reducing costs by $3.8 million. According to CDCR, the
closure of PYCF would save CDCR $29.6 million in the 2011-12
budget year.
4)Governor's Realignment Proposal : 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. According to the
Governor's Budget Summary, "Over the past decade, the number
of wards in state juvenile facilities has decreased from
approximately 10,000 to fewer than 1,300. 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.]
5)Argument in Support : According to the American Federation of
AB 8
Page 4
State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO , "This facility
is far too valuable to lose, serving as an example for other
facilities and their staff on proper rehabilitation and
management of the youth offender population, and should not be
closed. Moreover, the closure of the Preston Youth
Correctional Facility will result in devastating layoffs for
state employees. It is imperative that there be an evaluation
and discussion of the impacts of such a closure before it is
carried out, rather than rushing the decision."
6)Argument in Opposition : According to Books Not Bars , "State
officials and independent experts have estimated that nearly
$265 million in capital improvements and necessary repairs to
the DJJ youth prisons need to be made in order to provide the
minimum rehabilitative environment suitable for youth. With a
current youth population of approximately 1,260 youth, the DJJ
youth prisons are operating at less than 50% of capacity. The
youth population is projected to further decrease at least
through 2015. The failures of rehabilitative programming in
DJJ are evident in its 81% recidivism rate, one of the highest
in the nation. Youth languish in their cells as their family
members struggle to drive hundreds of miles to visit them,
losing a day's wages and accruing the high costs of travel and
childcare. It is clear that DJJ is failing our youth, failing
California families, and failing California taxpayers.
"The Legislative Analyst's Office recently reported a $25
billion budget deficit in California. State government and
the safety net are in crisis. As the state continues to cut
funding for education and vital services to families and the
elderly, we cannot afford to continue funding a failed
juvenile justice system.
"This bill would prevent the state from making fiscally sound
decisions to close facilities that are no longer needed.
Maintaining last year's staffing levels when the youth
population is declining is fiscally irresponsible and just
doesn't make sense. AB 8 would thwart the state's efforts to
move away from failed policies that have contributed to the
current economic crisis."
Included in the letter of opposition was a petition in support
of closing PYCF, signed by approximately 1,000 California
residents.
AB 8
Page 5
7)Prior Legislation : SB 91 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal
Review), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, prohibited the
commitment of a minor to a DJJ youth correctional facility
unless the minor was found to commit specified felonies.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
Preston Castle Foundation
18 private individuals
Opposition
Books Not Bars
Drug Policy Alliance
Friends Committee on Legislation
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3957