BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Hearing Date: 02/13/2012 Amended: 02/07/2012
Consultant: Jolie Onodera Policy Vote: Public Safety 6-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 324, an urgency measure, would expressly
authorize the juvenile court to commit a delinquent ward to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of
Juvenile Facilities (DJF) if that ward has committed a
registerable sex offense, as specified. This bill would
authorize the chief of the DJF, with approval of the Director of
Finance, to enter into contracts with counties for DJF to
provide housing to a ward whose commitment was recalled pursuant
to the California Supreme Court's ruling in In re C.H. (2011) 53
Cal.4th 94.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Fund
Current DJF No new state costs. Potentially
significant General
commitments (65 wards) foregone savings of $1,400 to $1,850
per 10 wards retained at DJF; maximum
one-time foregone savings of $12,000
Prospective DJF Potential first-year costs up to
$600,General
commitments* annual ongoing costs up to $2,300.
Potential cost savings in averted
fitnessGeneral**/Local
hearings, jury trials, and incarceration
*Annualized costs increase to $7.8 million if 2012-13 Governor's
Budget proposal is enacted.
**Trial Court Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Page 1
This bill seeks to address the California Supreme Court's ruling
on December 12, 2011, in In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, that
reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ruled that a
juvenile court lacks the authority to commit a ward to the CDCR
DJF if that ward has never been adjudged to have committed a
serious or violent offense described in Welfare and Institutions
Code (WIC) section 707(b), even if his or her most recent
offense is a sex offense set forth in Penal Code (PC) section
290.008(c).
Existing law provides that a juvenile court may commit a ward to
the DJF if the ward has committed an offense described in WIC
section 707(b) and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment
under WIC section 733 (WIC section 731(a)(4)). Section 707(b)
enumerates over 30 serious and violent offenses but is not
inclusive of the registerable sex offenses listed in PC section
290.008(c). WIC section 733(c) specifies a ward is ineligible
for DJF commitment if the ward's most recent offense admitted or
found to be true by the court is not described in WIC section
707(b), unless the offense is a sex offense set forth in PC
section 290.008(c).
The Supreme Court held that considered together, WIC sections
731(a)(4) and 733(c) limit the class of wards who may be
committed to the DJF to a ward who has committed an offense
listed in section WIC section 707(b) and then only if the ward's
most recent offense is either an offense enumerated under WIC
section 707(b) or a sex offense described in PC section
290.008(c). Because the ward identified in In re C.H. was never
adjudicated to have committed an offense listed in WIC section
707(b), the Court ruled that the juvenile court had no authority
to commit the ward to the DJF.
Juvenile justice reform enacted under budget trailer bills SB 81
(Chapter 175/2007) and AB 191 (Chapter 257/2007) shifted
responsibility for juvenile court commitments to the counties
for all but the most serious youth offenders. Consistent with
the intent reflected in statements such as the following from
the SB 81 floor analysis, "Juvenile sex offenders are excluded
from this change and will not be impacted by this bill," the
courts have continued to commit wards to the DJF who have
committed sex offenses under PC section 290.008(c), even if the
ward has never been adjudged to have committed a WIC section
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Page 2
707(b) offense. To affect the statutory change expressly
authorizing eligibility for DJF commitment for juvenile sex
offenders, this bill amends current law to specify the court's
authority to commit a ward to the DJF to include a ward who has
committed an offense listed in either WIC section 707(b) or PC
section 290.008(c).
The DJF currently houses 65 offenders from over 20 counties
whose commitment to DJF could be impacted under the In re C.H.
ruling. The cost to retain the 65 wards in DJF throughout their
terms is estimated to range from $16 million to $24 million
General Fund, based on data from the CDCR Office of Research
indicating an estimated average number of months remaining in
confinement of 17 to 25 months and an average monthly cost of
$14,833. The existing DJF caseload reflects current practice and
therefore inclusion in near-term budget projections.
Consequently, there are no new state costs to retain the 65
wards currently committed to DJF.
This bill authorizes the chief of the DJF, with the approval of
the Director of Finance (DOF), to enter into contracts with
counties to house wards whose commitment is recalled pursuant to
In re C.H. The bill does not specify a contract rate per ward,
and the CDCR has indicated they are not anticipating any costs
or charges to the counties to have DJF furnish housing for these
wards. Further, as these wards' commitments will have been
recalled, the requirement under current law (SB 92 (Budget and
Fiscal Review), Chapter 36/2011) for county payment to the state
of $125,000 per ward committed to DJF would not apply. If DOF
approval is granted, a level of foregone General Fund savings
could be incurred to the extent wards are retained at DJF under
contract at no additional cost to the counties but would have
otherwise been released to local custody pursuant to In re C.H.
and funded through a combination of local and state funds.
At this time, it is unknown how many counties may choose to
contract back with DJF, as multiple factors specific to each
individual case will affect a county's decision to retain or
transfer a youth (such as the ward's age and length of time to
projected release, sex offender treatment currently provided at
DJF, and the availability of comparable treatment and capacity
at the local level). Based on the estimated average confinement
time remaining at DJF noted above, every 10 wards contracted
back to DJF could result in one-time foregone savings of
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Page 3
approximately $1.4 million to $1.85 million General Fund, up to
a maximum of approximately $12 million for all affected wards.
This estimate assumes total foregone savings attributable to DJF
commitment costs alone would be offset in part by an increase in
Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) funds allocated to counties
in the absence of this measure for wards retained at the local
level. Under current law, the YOBG is funded through a
percentage of state sales tax revenues in 2011-12, but will be
funded through a transfer from the General Fund in 2012-13 and
years thereafter.
This bill poses potentially significant future General Fund
costs for increased state DJF terms to the extent prospective
wards are prosecuted as juveniles and committed to DJF rather
than county-level facilities. Clarifying the eligibility
criteria for DJF commitment will expand the class of wards
eligible for DJF placement due to a PC section 290.008(c)
offense who would have been otherwise ineligible pursuant to the
In re C.H. ruling. The fiscal impact is uncertain because future
costs are dependent upon the behavior and decisions of
individual juvenile court judges and district attorneys, the
number, age, and prior delinquent history of juvenile offenders,
and a specific county's ability and decision to house and treat
wards locally in lieu of DJF commitment.
Based on CDCR data for the prior three years (2009-2011), 22
wards per year have been committed to the DJF under PC section
290.008(c) absent a WIC section 707(b) offense. The estimated
annual per capita cost for a DJF commitment is $178,000 General
Fund. Under current law, effective January 1, 2012, counties are
required to pay the state an annual rate of $125,000 per ward
committed to the DJF. This results in an annual net General Fund
cost of $53,000 per ward. First-year costs assuming a steady
phase-in of 22 wards over the year would approximate $600,000
General Fund. Based on an average length of stay of 23.72 months
for these wards (CDCR Office of Research data as of December 31,
2011), annualized costs of up to $2.3 million could be incurred
for wards who would have been otherwise ineligible for DJF
commitment.
Staff notes the 2012-13 Governor's Budget proposes to delay
collection of the $125,000 fee per ward imposed under SB 92
(Chapter 36/2011). Should the proposal be approved by the
Legislature and enacted, the State would bear the full cost per
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Page 4
ward of $178,000 until the delay is lifted, resulting in
first-year costs of nearly $2 million and annualized costs of up
to $7.8 million General Fund.
In the absence of this measure, no increase in YOBG allocations
to counties for prospective wards is assumed. Current law
specifies the YOBG Average Daily Population (ADP) formula to
include wards not committed to DJF pursuant to WIC sections
733(c). Consistent with the In re C.H. ruling, prospective wards
would not be committed due to their ineligibility under WIC
section 733(c) but rather would not be committed by way of not
being eligible pursuant to WIC section 731(a)(4). A YOBG
adjustment for the existing 65 wards is assumed pursuant to
existing law that authorizes inclusion of wards in the ADP
formula who have had their DJF commitment recalled.
This bill may also result in future cost savings to the courts
and county jails to the extent that motions in juvenile court to
remand cases to adult court are avoided. Cost savings in averted
fitness hearings, potential jury trials, extended time in county
jail pending court time, and subsequent incarceration could be
significant. Minors age 16 years or older accused of committing
a felony offense may be tried in adult court subject to various
circumstances including age and prior criminal history. Based on
age alone, prosecutors could potentially bring a motion in
juvenile court to remand the case to adult court for
approximately 75 percent of prospective cases. Fewer court
resources would be required to adjudicate a juvenile court
delinquency matter absent a fitness hearing, regardless of
whether the case transfers to criminal court or remains in
delinquency court. The magnitude of the fiscal impact would be
determined by the behavior of individual prosecutors, the number
of fitness hearings held, and the number, duration, and
disposition of the cases ultimately transferred to adult court.
It is unknown at this time the extent to which comparable sex
offender treatment is available at the county level for all
affected wards. In the absence of this measure, for a county
lacking such programming, the interruption of sex offender
treatment for existing wards and/or the inaccessibility of
adequate treatment for prospective wards could lead to poorer
outcomes and risks of future costs associated with recidivism,
both at the state and local level.
Under current law, wards committed to DJF who have been
AB 324 (Buchanan)
Page 5
adjudicated for a registerable sex offense are subject to
lifetime sex offender registration. To the extent the current 65
DJF commitments are recalled, these wards may be relieved of
this requirement, resulting in minor cost savings to the
Department of Justice, the courts, and counties related to
enforcement. Prospective wards committed to DJF subject to
lifetime registration who otherwise would not have been so
required absent this bill could place a degree of future cost
pressure on local law enforcement, the courts, and local jails
related to violations for failure to register over their
lifetimes.
Staff notes the 2012-13 Governor's Budget proposes to cease
admissions to DJF effective January 1, 2013. Should the
Governor's proposal be approved by the Legislature and enacted,
the provisions of this bill enabling future DJF commitments
would appear to be rendered inoperable.
Prior Legislation. SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
Chapter 175/2007 enacted juvenile justice reform to stop the
intake of youthful offenders adjudicated for non-violent,
non-serious offenses to the state DJF effective September 1,
2007. Juvenile sex offenders were not to be impacted by the
realignment to local care and custody.
AB 191 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 257/2007 made various
modifications to SB 81 (Chapter 175/2007) to ensure that none of
the juvenile justice reforms contained in the 2007 Corrections
trailer bill affected juveniles adjudicated of specified sex
offenses.