1. 1 COMMONWEAL JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION POLICY IN CALIFORNIA TCWF Violence Prevention Conference November 15, 2007 – San Francisco A Summary of SB 81 Juvenile Justice Realignment Provisions and Implementation Issues Plus FY 07-08 State Budget Results for Violence Prevention Programs Presented by David Steinhart Director, Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program

2. 2 COMMONWEAL SB 81: Juvenile Justice Realignment OVERVIEW DJJ Population will be “downsized” to about one half its current level o Expect: 1,500 DJJ wards in 2 years (from 2,500 now) Non-violent juvenile offenders will stay in county programs and facilities– No DJJ State will pay counties for new juvenile disposition and aftercare programs DJJ will continue to accept serious- violent offenders committed by county courts

3. 3 COMMONWEAL SB 81: Why did we need it?

4. 4 COMMONWEAL  Earlier realignment proposals failed  Governors would not budge– united with CCPOA/victims groups against CYA reform  Counties did not support: “…not enough money”  What was different in 2007?  Governor ready to deal: COST DRIVEN DECISION  Counties willing to play: IF THE MONEY IS RIGHT  Lawmakers ready to change: DISCOURAGED ON DJJ  Negotiations lead to SB 81 package (May ’07)  Counties, Administration, Legislature agree on details SB 81: How did it happen?

5. 5 COMMONWEAL California Division of Juvenile Justice (CYA to 2005) Institutional Cost Per Ward Per Year 1996 – 2007 Sources: CA state budgets, CA Dept. of Finance, CA CDCR-Div. of Juvenile Facilities Farrell consent decree

6. 6 COMMONWEAL FUTURE COMMITMENTS  “NON 707 (B)” JUVENILES CANNOT BE SENT TO DJJ after Sept. 1, 2007  EXCEPTION for non 707 “registerable” sex offenders on the PC 290 (d) (3) list  HOW MANY OFFENDERS MUST BE KEPT UNDER COUNTY CONTROL?  Non 707’s were about 40% of commitments to DJJ in 2006  ABOUT 300 WARDS/ YEAR WILL BE SB 81 “NOT ELIGIBLE” FOR DJJ  ANOTHER 350 WARDS/YEAR WILL BE “NON RETURNABLE” FOR PAROLE VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY INSTITUTIONALIZED WARDS  MAY BE INDIVIDUALLY RECALLED BY COUNTIES (Non 707s)  IF NOT RECALLED, WILL BE RELEASED IN DUE TIME BY THE PAROLE BOARD  HOW MANY are there? As of 9/07, DJJ pop. included about 700 non 707s CURRENT PAROLEES  NOT A FULL SHIFT TO COUNTIES  UPON VIOLATION (per AB 191) WARD MOVES TO COUNTY SUPERVISION  LOCAL COURT HOLDS RE-ENTRY HEARING TO SET PROBATION CONDITIONS  HOW MANY? About 575 non 707 wards are on the DJJ parole caseload (9-07) SB 81: What does it do? CASELOADS AFFECTED

7. 7 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What does it do? PAYMENTS TO COUNTIES YOUTHFUL OFFENDER BLOCK GRANT FUND  Based on $ 117,000/ year for banned commits & returns  Relief from “sliding scale” fees adds value to this payout  $ 15,000 per year for parole supervision of released wards  Total statewide fund: $24 mil.1st year $92 mil. 3 rd year  Distribution formula:  50% share of youth pop (10-17), 50% juv. felony adjudication rate  Min. small county grant: $ 58,500 (1 st year), then $ 117,000  Payout: State Controller deposits in county fund. CSA role.  Contingency fund: 5% of total– counties apply to CSA  Individual payouts: $117,000/year for recalls (pro rated)  Renewals: “Deal” includes funding in perpetuity w/ COLA

8. 8 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What does it do? COUNTY ALLOCATIONS FY 07-08 Source: CA Department of FinanceNote: Allocations projected to grow by factor of 3.8 by 2010-11

9. 9 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What does it do? COUNTY USES OF FUNDS  ALLOCATIONS SHALL BE USED TO…. “Enhance the capacity” of local agencies to provide “rehabilitation and supervision services” to the shifted DJJ caseload, including all necessary “custody and parole” services --- FROM NEW WIC SEC. 1951 (B)  INTENT LANGUAGE LISTS PREFERRED USES INCLUDING  Assessment tools, day/ evening reporting, elec. monitoring, specialized placements, re-entry services, professional training and regional networks  COUNTY “JUVENILE JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS”  Due at Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) by 1/1/08  Plan must describe uses of funds, any regional agreements and coordination with spending under JJCPA  LOCAL FUNDING DECISIONS ARE UP TO THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE  No single agency or group is designated by SB 81 to allocate funds  $ 15 MILLION IN COUNTY PLANNING GRANTS FOR REALIGNMENT— CUT BY GOVERNOR FROM THE BUDGET  RUNNER INITIATIVE— would amend SB 81 to eliminate allocations to mental health, drug/alcohol, other county agencies for realignment services, essentially earmarking funds for county probation.

10. 10 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What does it do? FACILITY CONSTRUCTION GRANTS  SB 81 authorizes $100 million in revenue bonds for “local youthful offender rehabilitative facilities”  Funds can be used to “Acquire, design, renovate or build”  CSA to approve const. grants on a competitive basis  Applications must include staffing and operating cost plans  Counties to provide 25% matching funds  SB 81 is silent as to the types of facilities or the specific offender populations they would serve

11. 11 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What does it do? NEW STATE JJ COMMISSION PURPOSE: Comprehensive planning, oversight & coordination of state/local juvenile. justice partnership and performance DELIVERABLE: Must produce a statewide “Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan” by 1/1/09 to include:  Risk/needs assessment tools for program & security classification  Common juvenile justice data collection elements  Plan to promote a continuum of evidence-based responses MAKEUP –12 Stakeholder Reps appointed by Gov, Senate, Assembly, Others –Tri-chaired by the DJJ Chief, CPOC and CSAC STAFFING: By DJJ with a $600,000 appropriation SUNSET: Commission self-extinguishes 1-1-09 unless re-enacted

12. 12 COMMONWEAL SB 81: What happens now? IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES 1.Are counties ready and able to handle the shifted caseload? 2.Where will counties with no secure facility put these youth? oWhere will special needs youth go– e.g. mentally ill offenders? 3.What regional networking and placement alliances should smaller and rural counties form? 4.Will counties use the SB 81 option to recall their DJJ wards? 5.How will counties address new re-entry and aftercare needs? 6.What sanctions are available for wards over 18 who can’t go into foster care or be confined with younger juveniles? 7.Will prosecutors file more 707s or adult court cases? 8.Will state funds be sufficient? Will the state honor its commitment to SB 81 funding in future years? 9.Are state agencies (CSA, DJJ) prepared to achieve the shift? 10.What facilities should or will be built with construction funds?

13. 13 COMMONWEAL RUNNER INITIATIVE: PUSHES STATE GANG POLICY INTO FULL SUPPRESSION MODE… CUTS OUT CBOs  SPONSORS: George & Sharon Runner, Mike Reynolds (3 strikes sponsor)  STATUS: Filed with AG for title & summary. Circulating for Nov ’08 ballot  HIGHLIGHTS… Increases penalties (criminal & civil) for gang related offenses across board Creates new gang registration requirements and penalties Adds pro-prosecution law changes– examples:  No bail for undocumented persons arrested for gang offenses  Evidence law changed to relax hearsay rules on unavailable witnesses  Due process rights capped and trimmed in parole violation proceedings  No good time credits for any prisoner with an “up to life” sentence  Trying juveniles as adults: kids with gang offenses presumed unfit for juvenile court  BALLOT BOX BUDGETING  Earmarks $500 million/year for law enforcement, victim projects  Earmarks current funding or higher in perpetuity for listed law enforcement operations  YOUTH CRIME PREVENTION  States this as objective but funds only police recreation, probation supervision programs  REMOVES CBOs, nonprofits from local Schiff Cardenas Coordinating Councils  MARKETING AND PROSPECTS…  “Safe Neighborhood Act”  Like Prop 21, will be sold as crackdown on gangs– likely little focus on code revision details  Sponsors need $3 million for signatures to qualify for ballot… who’s paying?  If it qualifies, Governor’s position likely to be a factor in outcome