AB 1998: Juveniles: data collection.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2016-09-30
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to fund specified local programs related to corrections. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys received into the county SLESA be allocated to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county or city and county, and approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (board). Existing law requires the juvenile justice plans to include specified assessments of services and strategies to assist at-risk juveniles.
This bill would recast those requirements to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by the county SLESA. The bill would delete the requirement that the board review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the board, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the board on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes. The bill would require the board to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would require the board to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report. The bill would authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law establishes, within the board, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.
This bill would require the board, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations on best practices and standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
Existing law requires each county to prepare and submit a Juvenile Justice Development Plan to the Corrections Standards Authority on or before May 1 of each year for approval.
This bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the board instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. The bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be consolidated with the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans created by the local councils for funding from county SLESAs, as described above. The bill would require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the board, instead of the authority. The bill would require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the boards Internet Web site. The bill would make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional reporting duties on local government entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to fund specified local programs related to corrections. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys received into the county SLESA be allocated to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county or city and county, and approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (board). Existing law requires the juvenile justice plans to include specified assessments of services and strategies to assist at-risk juveniles.
This bill would recast those requirements to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by the county SLESA. The bill would delete the requirement that the board review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the board, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the board on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes. The bill would require the board to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would require the board to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report. The bill would authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law establishes, within the board, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.
This bill would require the board, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations on best practices and standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
Existing law requires each county to prepare and submit a Juvenile Justice Development Plan to the Corrections Standards Authority on or before May 1 of each year for approval.
This bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the board instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. The bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be consolidated with the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans created by the local councils for funding from county SLESAs, as described above. The bill would require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the board, instead of the authority. The bill would require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the boards Internet Web site. The bill would make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional reporting duties on local government entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to fund specified local programs related to corrections. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys received into the county SLESA be allocated to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county or city and county, and approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (Board). (board). Existing law requires the juvenile justice plans to include specified assessments of services and strategies to assist at-risk juveniles.
This bill would recast those requirements to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by the county SLESA. The bill would delete the requirement that the Board board review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the Board, board, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the Board board on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes. The bill would require the Board board to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would require the Board board to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report. The bill would authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law establishes, within the Board, board, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.
This bill would require the Board, board, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations on best practices and standardizations standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
Existing law requires each county to prepare and submit a Juvenile Justice Development Plan to the Corrections Standards Authority on or before May 1 of each year for approval.
This bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the Board board instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. The bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be consolidated with the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans created by the local councils for funding from county SLEAs, SLESAs, as described above. The bill would require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the Board, board, instead of the authority. The bill would require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the Board board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the Boards boards Internet Web site. The bill would make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional reporting duties on local government entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to fund specified local programs related to corrections. Existing law requires that 50% of the moneys received into the county SLESA be allocated to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county or city and county, and approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections (Board). Existing law requires the juvenile justice plans to include specified assessments of services and strategies to assist at-risk juveniles.
This bill would recast those requirements to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by the county SLESA. The bill would delete the requirement that the Board review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the Board, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the Board on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes. The bill would require the Board to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature. The bill would require the Board to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report. The bill would authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. By imposing additional duties on local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law establishes, within the Board of State and Community Corrections, Board, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.
This bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections to prepare guidelines Board, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations on best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
Existing law requires each county to prepare and submit a Juvenile Justice Development Plan to the Corrections Standards Authority on or before May 1 of each year for approval.
This bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the Board instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. The bill would require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be consolidated with the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans created by the local councils for funding from county SLEAs, as described above. The bill would require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the Board, instead of the authority. The bill would require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the Board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the Boards Internet Web site. The bill would make additional conforming changes. By imposing additional reporting duties on local government entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law establishes, within the Board of State and Community Corrections, the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, as provided. Existing law requires the working group to, among other things, analyze the capacities and limitations of the data systems and networks used to collect and report state and local juvenile caseload and outcome data and prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.
This bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
Existing law provides that the juvenile court and probation department have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition to declare the child a ward of the court is to be, or has been, filed is or may be an Indian child if the child is at risk of entering foster care or is in foster care.
This bill would require the juvenile court, a juvenile detention facility, and a county probation department, when asking juveniles about their race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation in order to comply with federal data collection requirements, to collect additional data by using specified questions, including, among others, Are you Hispanic or Latino? By imposing new duties on local juvenile detention facilities and county probation departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Existing law provides that the juvenile court and probation department have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child for whom a petition to declare the child a ward of the court is to be, or has been, filed is or may be an Indian child if the child is at risk of entering foster care or is in foster care.
This bill would require the juvenile court, a juvenile detention facility, and a county probation department, when asking juveniles about their race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation in order to comply with federal data collection requirements, to collect additional data by using specified questions, including, among others, Are you Hispanic or Latino? By imposing new duties on local juvenile detention facilities and county probation departments, this bill would impose a state-mandated program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
This act consolidates the submission of reports required by counties by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code and Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as those sections read prior to the enactment of this act. The act streamlines county reporting requirements, eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, substitutes other reporting requirements, and allows counties to utilize existing available data instead of generating new data. As such, the Legislature finds and declares that changes to the reporting requirements in this measure do not constitute a higher level of service within the meaning of paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
SEC. 2.Section 30061 of the Government Code is amended to read:30061.(a)There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b)In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the countys SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. In the case of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara Counties, this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of corrections.
(2)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
(3)Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, in the case of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa Counties, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community Services District in Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District in Contra Costa County, as specified in the most recent January estimate by the population research unit of the Department of Finance, and as adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made. No person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District shall also be counted as residing within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in a SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4)Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership described in Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. The plan or updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(A)The multiagency juvenile justice plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i)An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii)An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii)A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv)A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph.
(B)Programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded under this chapter shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i)Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii)Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii)Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies.
(C)To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
(i)An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(ii)An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
(iii)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(D)The board shall, within 45 days of having received the countys report, post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
(E)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
(c)Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney. Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment, and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2)In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city.
(3)In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district.
(d)For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
(e)For the 201112 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(f)Commencing with the 201213 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(g)Commencing with the 201314 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h)Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year. A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015.
(i)In the 201011 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction, the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1, 2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j)The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.
SEC. 3.Section 6033 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 6032, to read:6033.The Board of State and Community Corrections shall, by January 1, 2018, develop recommendations for best practices and standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
SEC. 4.Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1961.(a)On or before May 1 of each year, each county shall prepare and submit to the Board of State and Community Corrections a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed programs, strategies, and system enhancements for the next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951. The plan shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements to be funded by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960.
(2)A description of how the plan relates to or supports the countys overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, and who are no longer eligible for commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities under Section 733 as of September 1, 2007.
(3)A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter.
(4)A description of how the programs, placements, services, or strategies identified in the plan coordinate with multiagency juvenile justice plans and programs under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(b)The plan described in subdivision (a) shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections in a format, as specified by the board, that consolidates the form for submission of the plan with the form for submission of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to be developed and submitted to the board as provided by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(c)Each county receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Board of State and Community Corrections on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report required by this subdivision with the annual report required to be submitted to the board under the provisions of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code, and shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the countys expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and juvenile justice funds provided under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(3)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(d)The board shall prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports submitted in accordance with subdivision (c). By March 1 of each year, the board also shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including a summary of the programs, strategies, system enhancements, and related expenditures made by each county utilizing Youthful Offender Block Grant funds. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by Youthful Offender Block Grant funds have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature required under this section with the annual report required by subparagraph (E) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code. The annual report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. The annual report shall also be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
SEC. 5.Section 1962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is repealed.SEC. 6.Section 1962 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:1962.The Board of State and Community Corrections may monitor the forms, documents, and information submitted by counties pursuant to Section 1961 and may advise counties and provide technical assistance on the implementation and requirements of Section 1961.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state nor otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
This act consolidates the submission of reports required by counties by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code and Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as those sections read prior to the enactment of this act. The act streamlines county reporting requirements, eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, substitutes other reporting requirements, and allows counties to utilize existing available data instead of generating new data. As such, the Legislature finds and declares that changes to the reporting requirements in this measure do not constitute a higher level of service within the meaning of paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
SEC. 2.Section 30061 of the Government Code is amended to read:30061.(a)There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b)In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the countys SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. In the case of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara Counties, this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of corrections.
(2)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
(3)Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, in the case of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa Counties, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community Services District in Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District in Contra Costa County, as specified in the most recent January estimate by the population research unit of the Department of Finance, and as adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made. No person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District shall also be counted as residing within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in a SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4)Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership described in Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. The plan or updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(A)The multiagency juvenile justice plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i)An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii)An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii)A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv)A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph.
(B)Programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded under this chapter shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i)Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii)Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii)Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies.
(C)To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
(i)An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(ii)An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
(iii)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(D)The board shall, within 45 days of having received the countys report, post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
(E)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their submission, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
(c)Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney. Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment, and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2)In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city.
(3)In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district.
(d)For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
(e)For the 201112 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(f)Commencing with the 201213 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(g)Commencing with the 201314 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h)Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year. A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015.
(i)In the 201011 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction, the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1, 2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j)The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.
SEC. 3.Section 6033 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 6032, to read:6033.The Board of State and Community Corrections shall, by January 1, 2018, develop recommendations for best practices and standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
SEC. 4.Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1961.(a)On or before May 1 of each year, each county shall prepare and submit to the Board of State and Community Corrections a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed programs, strategies, and system enhancements for the next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951. The plan shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements to be funded by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960.
(2)A description of how the plan relates to or supports the countys overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, and who are no longer eligible for commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities under Section 733 as of September 1, 2007.
(3)A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter.
(4)A description of how the programs, placements, services, or strategies identified in the plan coordinate with multiagency juvenile justice plans and programs under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(b)The plan described in subdivision (a) shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections in a format, as specified by the board, that consolidates the form for submission of the plan with the form for submission of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to be developed and submitted to the board as provided by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(c)Each county receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Board of State and Community Corrections on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report required by this subdivision with the annual report required to be submitted to the board under the provisions of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code, and shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the countys expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and juvenile justice funds provided under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(3)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(d)The board shall prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports submitted in accordance with subdivision (c). By March 1 of each year, the board also shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including a summary of the programs, strategies, system enhancements, and related expenditures made by each county utilizing Youthful Offender Block Grant funds. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by Youthful Offender Block Grant funds have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature required under this section with the annual report required by subparagraph (E) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code. The annual report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. The annual report shall also be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
SEC. 5.Section 1962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is repealed.SEC. 6.Section 1962 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:1962.The Board of State and Community Corrections may monitor the forms, documents, and information submitted by counties pursuant to Section 1961 and may advise counties and provide technical assistance on the implementation and requirements of Section 1961.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state nor otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
This act consolidates the submission of reports required by counties by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code and Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as those sections read prior to the enactment of this act. The act streamlines county reporting requirements, eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, substitutes other reporting requirements, and allows counties to utilize existing available data instead of generating new data. As such, the Legislature finds and declares that changes to the reporting requirements in this measure do not constitute a higher level of service within the meaning of paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.Section 30061 of the Government Code is amended to read:30061.(a)There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b)In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the countys SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. In the case of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara Counties, this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of corrections.
(2)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
(3)Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, in the case of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa Counties, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community Services District in Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District in Contra Costa County, as specified in the most recent January estimate by the population research unit of the Department of Finance, and as adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made. No person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District shall also be counted as residing within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in an a SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4)Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership described in Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. The plan or updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(A)The multiagency juvenile justice plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i)An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii)An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii)A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv)A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph.
(B)Programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded under this chapter shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i)Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii)Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii)Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies.
(C)To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
(i)An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(ii)An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
(iii)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(D)The board shall, within 45 days of having received the countys report, post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
(E)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports and, by March 1 of each year following their October 1 submission, and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
(c)Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney. Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment, and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2)In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city.
(3)In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district.
(d)For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
(e)For the 201112 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(f)Commencing with the 201213 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(g)Commencing with the 201314 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h)Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year. A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015.
(i)In the 201011 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction, the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1, 2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j)The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.
SEC. 2.SEC. 3.Section 6033 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 6032, to read:6033.The Board of State and Community Corrections shall, by January 1, 2018, develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations standardization for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1961.(a)On or before May 1 of each year, each county shall prepare and submit to the Board of State and Community Corrections for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed programs, strategies, and system enhancements for the next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951. The plan shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements to be funded by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960.
(2)A description of how the plan relates to or supports the countys overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, and who are no longer eligible for commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities under Section 733 as of September 1, 2007.
(3)A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter.
(4)A description of how the programs, placements, services, or strategies identified in the plan coordinate with multiagency juvenile justice plans and programs under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(b)The plan described in subdivision (a) shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections in a format, as specified by the board, that consolidates the form for submission of the plan with the form for submission of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to be developed and submitted to the board as provided by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(c)Each county receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Board of State and Community Corrections on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report required by this subdivision with the annual report required to be submitted to the board under the provisions of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code, and shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, strategies, and system enhancements supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the countys expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and juvenile justice funds provided under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(3)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(d)The board shall prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports submitted in accordance with subdivision (c). By March 1 of each year, the board also shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including a summary of the programs, strategies, system enhancements, and related expenditures made by each county utilizing Youthful Offender Block Grant funds. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by Youthful Offender Block Grant funds have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature required under this section with the annual report required by subparagraph (E) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code. The annual report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. The annual report shall also be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
SEC. 4.Section 1962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1962.(a)The Board of State and Community Corrections may provide technical assistance to counties for the purpose of encouraging and promoting compliance with plan and report requirements described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061.
(b)The Board of State and Community Corrections may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds allocated pursuant to this chapter and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 5.Section 1962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is repealed.1962.(a)The Corrections Standards Authority, in consultation with the Division of Juvenile Facilities, may provide technical assistance to counties, including, but not limited to, regional workshops, prior to issuing any Request for Proposal.
(b)The Corrections Standards Authority may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds allocated pursuant to this chapter and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.
SEC. 6.Section 1962 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:1962.The Board of State and Community Corrections may monitor the forms, documents, and information submitted by counties pursuant to Section 1961 and may advise counties and provide technical assistance on the implementation and requirements of Section 1961.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state nor otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
(a)There shall be established in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to a county for purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b)In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the countys SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund. The moneys shall be allocated as follows:
(1)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county sheriff for county jail construction and operation. In the case of Madera, Napa, and Santa Clara Counties, this allocation shall be made to the county director or chief of corrections.
(2)Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district attorney for criminal prosecution.
(3)Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and the cities within the county, and, in the case of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, and Contra Costa Counties, also to the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District, in accordance with the relative population of the cities within the county and the unincorporated area of the county, and the Broadmoor Police Protection District in the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District and the Stallion Springs Community Services District in Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District in Siskiyou County, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District in Contra Costa County, as specified in the most recent January estimate by the population research unit of the Department of Finance, and as adjusted to provide, except as provided in subdivision (i), a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. For a newly incorporated city whose population estimate is not published by the Department of Finance, but that was incorporated prior to July 1 of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made, the city manager, or an appointee of the legislative body, if a city manager is not available, and the county administrative or executive officer shall prepare a joint notification to the Department of Finance and the county auditor with a population estimate reduction of the unincorporated area of the county equal to the population of the newly incorporated city by July 15, or within 15 days after the Budget Act is enacted, of the fiscal year in which an allocation from the SLESA is to be made. No person residing within the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District shall also be counted as residing within the unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, Kern, Siskiyou, or Contra Costa, or within any city located within those counties. Except as provided in subdivision (i), the county auditor shall allocate a grant of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction. Moneys allocated to the county pursuant to this subdivision shall be retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city pursuant to this subdivision shall be deposited in an SLESA established in the city treasury.
(4)Fifty percent to the county or city and county to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan as provided in this paragraph. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county with the membership described in Section 749.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If a plan has been previously approved by the Corrections Standards Authority or, commencing July 1, 2012, by the Board of State and Community Corrections, the plan shall be reviewed and modified annually by the council. The plan or modified plan shall be approved by the county board of supervisors, and in the case of a city and county, the plan shall also be approved by the mayor. The plan shall be reviewed and updated annually by the council. The plan or updated plan may, at the discretion of the county or city and county, be approved by the county board of supervisors. The plan or modified updated plan shall be submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections by May 1 of each year. year in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(A)Juvenile justice plans The multiagency juvenile justice plan shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i)An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii)An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii)A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv)Programs identified in clause (iii) A description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including the projected amount of funding for each program. subparagraph.
(B)Programs Programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded under this chapter shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i)Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii)Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii)Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies.
(iv)Adopt goals related to the outcome measures that shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the local juvenile justice action strategy.
(C)The plan shall also identify the specific objectives of the programs proposed for funding and specified outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of the programs and contain an accounting for all program participants, including those who do not complete the programs. Outcome measures of the programs proposed to be funded shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(i)The rate of juvenile arrests per 100,000 population.
(ii)The rate of successful completion of probation.
(iii)The rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community service responsibilities.
(iv)Arrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of program participants.
(v)Quantification of the annual per capita costs of the program.
(D)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall review plans or modified plans submitted pursuant to this paragraph within 30 days upon receipt of submitted or resubmitted plans or modified plans. The board shall approve only those plans or modified plans that fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, and shall advise a submitting county or city and county immediately upon the approval of its plan or modified plan. The board shall offer, and provide, if requested, technical assistance to any county or city and county that submits a plan or modified plan not in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. The SLESA shall only allocate funding pursuant to this paragraph upon notification from the board that a plan or modified plan has been approved.
(E) To assess the effectiveness of programs funded pursuant to this paragraph using the program outcome criteria specified in subparagraph (C), the following periodic reports shall be submitted:
(i)Each county or city and county shall report, beginning October 15, 2002, and annually each October 15 thereafter, to the county board of supervisors and the Board of State and Community Corrections, in a format specified by the board, on the programs funded pursuant to this chapter and program outcomes as specified in subparagraph (C).
(C)To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
(i)An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(ii)An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
(iii)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(D)The board shall, within 45 days of having received the countys report, post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
(ii)
(E)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall compile the local reports and, by March 15, 2003, 1 following their October 1 submission, and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature on program expenditures within each county and city and county from the appropriation for the purposes of this paragraph, on the outcomes as specified in subparagraph (C) of the programs funded pursuant to this paragraph and the statewide effectiveness of the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans. summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for the purposes of this paragraph. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 9795, and shall be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
(c)Subject to subdivision (d), for each fiscal year in which the county, each city, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, the Bear Valley Community Services District, the Stallion Springs Community Services District, the Lake Shastina Community Services District, and the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District receive moneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the county, each city, and each district specified in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)In the case of the county, the county board of supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement services, other than those services specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b), in the unincorporated areas of the county, in response to written requests submitted to the board by the county sheriff and the district attorney. Any request submitted pursuant to this paragraph shall specify the frontline law enforcement needs of the requesting entity, and those personnel, equipment, and programs that are necessary to meet those needs.
(2)In the case of a city, the city council shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief of police of that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that city.
(3)In the case of the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County, the legislative body of that special district shall appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance with written requests submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement agency that provides police services for that special district.
(d)For each fiscal year in which the county, a city, or the Broadmoor Police Protection District within the County of San Mateo, the Bear Valley Community Services District or the Stallion Springs Community Services District within Kern County, the Lake Shastina Community Services District within Siskiyou County, or the Kensington Police Protection and Community Services District within Contra Costa County receives any moneys pursuant to this chapter, in no event shall the governing body of any of those recipient agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated to the county or city pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).
(e)For the 201112 fiscal year, the Controller shall allocate 23.54 percent of the amount deposited in the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subdivision (b), and shall allocate 23.54 percent for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(f)Commencing with the 201213 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (c) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).
(g)Commencing with the 201314 fiscal year, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, the Controller shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the purposes of paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (b), and, subsequent to the allocation described in subdivision (d) of Section 29552, shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for purposes of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b). The Controller shall allocate funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for public safety in accordance with this section as annually calculated by the Director of Finance.
(h)Funds received pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be expended or encumbered in accordance with this chapter no later than June 30 of the following fiscal year. A local agency that has not met the requirement of this subdivision shall remit unspent SLESA moneys received after April 1, 2009, to the Controller for deposit in the Local Safety and Protection Account, after April 1, 2012, to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account, and after July 1, 2012, to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount. This subdivision shall become inoperative on July 1, 2015.
(i)In the 201011 fiscal year, if the fourth quarter revenue derived from fees imposed by subdivision (a) of Section 10752.2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code that are deposited in the General Fund and transferred to the Local Safety and Protection Account, and continuously appropriated to the Controller for allocation pursuant to this section, are insufficient to provide a minimum grant of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to each law enforcement jurisdiction, the county auditor shall allocate the revenue proportionately, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The county auditor shall proportionately allocate, based on the allocation schedule in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), all revenues received after the distribution of the fourth quarter allocation attributable to these fees for which payment was due prior to July 1, 2011, until all minimum allocations are fulfilled, at which point all remaining revenue shall be distributed proportionately among the other jurisdictions.
(j)The county auditor shall redirect unspent funds that were remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount pursuant to subdivision (h), to the local agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to the amount remitted.
SECTION 1.SEC. 2.Section 6033 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 6032, to read:6033.The Board of State and Community Corrections shall prepare guidelines shall, by January 1, 2018, develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
SEC. 3.Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1961.(a)On or before May 1 of each year, each county shall prepare and submit to the Corrections Standards Authority Board of State and Community Corrections for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures programs, strategies, and system enhancements for the next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund described in Section 1951. The plan shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies strategies, and system enhancements to be funded by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter, including, but not limited to, the programs, tools, and strategies outlined in Section 1960.
(2)The proposed expenditures of block grant funds for each program, placement, service, strategy, or for any other item, activity, or operation.
(3)
(2)A description of how the plan relates to or supports the countys overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders who have not committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, and who are no longer eligible for commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities under Section 733 as of September 1, 2007.
(4)
(3)A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the block grant allocation pursuant to this chapter.
(5)
(4)A description of how the programs, placements, services, or strategies identified in the plan coordinate with multiagency juvenile justice plans and programs under Chapter 353 of the Statutes of 2000 (AB 1913). paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(b)The plan described in subdivision (a) shall be submitted in a format developed and provided by the Corrections Standards Authority. The Corrections Standards Authority may develop and provide a dual format for counties for the submission together of the county Juvenile Justice Development Plan described in subdivision (a) and the county multiagency juvenile justice plan described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code. A county may elect to submit both plans using the dual format and under guidelines established by the Corrections Standards Authority. to the Board of State and Community Corrections in a format, as specified by the board, that consolidates the form for submission of the plan with the form for submission of the multiagency juvenile justice plan to be developed and submitted to the board as provided by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(c)Each county receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant fund Fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards Authority Board of State and Community Corrections on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by the authority and shall include all of the following: board that consolidates the report required by this subdivision with the annual report required to be submitted to the board under the provisions of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code, and shall include all of the following:
(1)A description of the programs, placements, services, and strategies strategies, and system enhancements supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the countys expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2)Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following:
(A)The number of youth served including their characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity.
(B)As relevant to the program, placement, service, or strategy, the rate of successful completion by youth.
(C)For any program or placement supported by block grant funds, the arrest, rearrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of youth in any program or placement.
(D)Quantification of the annual per capita cost of the program, placement, strategy, or activity.
(2)A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and juvenile justice funds provided under paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code.
(3)Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
(d)The authority board shall prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county reports submitted in accordance with subdivision (c). By March 15 1 of each year, the authority board also shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislature a report summarizing county utilizations of block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including a summary of the performance outcomes reported by counties for the preceding fiscal year. programs, strategies, system enhancements, and related expenditures made by each county utilizing Youthful Offender Block Grant funds. The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by Youthful Offender Block Grant funds have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. The board may consolidate the annual report to the Governor and the Legislature required under this section with the annual report required by subparagraph (E) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of the Government Code. The annual report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. The annual report shall also be posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.
(e)The authority may modify the performance outcome measures specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) if it determines that counties are substantially unable to provide the information necessary to support the measures specified. Prior to making that modification, the authority shall consult with affected county and state juvenile justice stakeholders. In the event that any adjustment of the performance outcome measures is made, the outcome measures shall, to the extent feasible, remain consistent with the performance outcome measures specified in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061 of the Government Code for programs receiving juvenile justice grants from the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund.
SEC. 4.Section 1962 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:1962.(a)The Corrections Standards Authority, in consultation with the Division of Juvenile Facilities, Board of State and Community Corrections may provide technical assistance to counties, including, but not limited to, regional workshops, prior to issuing any Request for Proposal. counties for the purpose of encouraging and promoting compliance with plan and report requirements described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 30061.
(b)The Corrections Standards Authority Board of State and Community Corrections may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds allocated pursuant to this chapter and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Board of State and Community Corrections shall prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
SECTION 1.Section 224.7 is added to the Welfare and Institutions Code, immediately following Section 224.6, to read:224.7.The juvenile court, a juvenile detention facility, and a county probation department, when asking a juvenile about his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation in order to comply with federal data collection requirements, shall collect data regarding the juveniles race and ethnicity by asking the juvenile all of the following questions:
(a)Are you Hispanic or Latino?
(b)Which of the following describes your race?
(1)American Indian or Alaska Native.
(2)Asian.
(3)Black or African American.
(4)Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
(5)White.
(c)What is your national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation, if that population group or subgroup is not included in question (a) or (b)?
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The juvenile court, a juvenile detention facility, and a county probation department, when asking a juvenile about his or her race, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation in order to comply with federal data collection requirements, shall collect data regarding the juveniles race and ethnicity by asking the juvenile all of the following questions:
(a)Are you Hispanic or Latino?
(b)Which of the following describes your race?
(1)American Indian or Alaska Native.
(2)Asian.
(3)Black or African American.
(4)Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.
(5)White.
(c)What is your national origin, ancestry, or tribal affiliation, if that population group or subgroup is not included in question (a) or (b)?
SEC. 2.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.) |
| Aug 30, 2016 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Aug 23, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 6129.). |
| Aug 23, 2016 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Aug 17, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.). |
| Aug 17, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5045.). |
| Aug 17, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Aug 17, 2016 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 19 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 15, 2016 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 11, 2016 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 11). |
| Aug 1, 2016 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Jun 29, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 16, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 14, 2016 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| May 19, 2016 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 16, 2016 | Read first time. To print. |
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 4787.) |
| May 12, 2016 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| May 12, 2016 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 5, 2016 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| May 4, 2016 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (May 4). |
| Apr 20, 2016 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 19). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 11, 2016 | From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. Re-referred. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 11). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Apr 7, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. |
| Apr 7, 2016 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 6, 2016 | Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Apr 5, 2016 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 28, 2016 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Feb 25, 2016 | Referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Feb 17, 2016 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 18. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2016 | AB 1998 CAMPOS Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 17, 2016 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB1998 Campos By Hernandez | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 11, 2016 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 1, 2016 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 28, 2016 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 12, 2016 | AB 1998 CAMPOS Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 4, 2016 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 19, 2016 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| Apr 11, 2016 | Be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety] | Assembly Standing Committee on Rules |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| AIDS HealthCare Foundation | * Support | Jun 27, 2018 |
| America's Physician Groups | * Support | Jun 27, 2018 |
| American College of Emergency Physicians - California Chapter | * Against Unless Amend | Jun 27, 2018 |
| California Academy Of Family Physicians | * Against | Jun 27, 2018 |
| California Chiropractic Association | * Support | Jun 27, 2018 |
| California Chronic Care Coalition | * Against | Jun 27, 2018 |
| California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals | * Support | Jun 27, 2018 |
| Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice | ** Support | Aug 17, 2016 |
| Chief Probation Officers Of California | ** Support | Aug 17, 2016 |
| Commonweal the Juvenile Justice Project | ** Support | Aug 17, 2016 |
| National Association of Social Workers California Chapter | ** Support | Aug 17, 2016 |
| NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All | ** Support | Jun 28, 2016 |
| Pacific Juvenile Defender Association | ** Support | Aug 17, 2016 |
| Pacific Juvenile Defender Center | ** Support | Jun 28, 2016 |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1998
Author:(Campos)
As Amended Ver:August 15, 2016
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: | 78-0 | (May 12, 2016) | SENATE: | 39-0 | (August 17, 2016) |
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY: Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload, performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
The Senate amendments:
- Recast requirements of existing law to also include, among other things, a description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements proposed to be funded by a county Supplemental Enforcement Services Account (SLESA).
- Delete the requirement that the BSCC review the plan, and would instead require annual review and updating of the plan by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in a format specified by the BSCC, and annual reports by the county or city and county to the county board of supervisors and to the BSCC on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded by the county SLESA and expenditures for those purposes.
- Require the BSCC to compile those local reports summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county and to report that data annually to the Governor and the Legislature.
- Require the BSCC to post on its Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements from the local reports and to post the annual report.
- Authorize the local reports and the annual report to be consolidated with certain reports pertaining to the Youthful Offender Block Grant program.
- Require the Juvenile Justice Development Plan to be submitted to the BSCC instead of the Corrections Standards Authority and would recast the report requirements to include proposed programs, strategies, or system enhancements to be funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund.
- Require annual reports by counties regarding the use of the block grant funds be submitted to the BSCC, instead of the authority.
- Require annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature by the Board regarding the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by the block grants, and posting of those annual reports on the BSCC Web site.
- Repeal an existing section of law that provides for the Corrections Standard Authority's technical assistance to counties and instead provide that BSCC may monitor the forms, documents, and information submitted by counties pursuant to sections in this bill and may advise counties and provide technical assistance on its implementation requirements.
- Add a legislative finding and declaration that the changes to the reporting requirements in this bill do not constitute a higher level of service within the meaning of the applicable section in the California Constitution related to reimbursable local costs.
- Provide that to the extent that the provisions in this bill has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.
- Make additional conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the State Commission on Juvenile Justice to develop a Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and to make available, for implementation by all of the counties of the state, a number of strategies, including "Juvenile justice universal data collection elements, which shall be common to all counties."
- Requires each county in the state, as a condition of receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant fund described in Section 1951 to, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards Authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year and requires the report to be in a format specified by the authority that includes all of the following:
- A description of the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the county's expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year; and
- Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following: the number of youth served including their characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- BSCC: One-time and ongoing costs potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund) for additional workload to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice data, and provide technical assistance on plan and reporting requirements. Potential future administrative cost savings (General Fund) through submittal of a consolidated annual report to the Legislature to include the additional information submitted by counties.
- Local agencies: Potentially significant increase in one-time and near-term local agency costs (Special Fund*), potentially state-reimbursable or subject to Proposition 30 funding provisions, in whole or in part (General Fund), to develop/update multiagency juvenile justice plans, including information on strategies and system enhancements, and to conduct more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting. Administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5% of a local entity's annual SLESA allocation. To the extent additional administrative costs are incurred by a county above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (General Fund). To the extent the required consolidation of reporting to the BSCC results in workload efficiencies could potentially result in administrative cost savings in future years.
- Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (JJCPA) and Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) expenditures: Potentially significant future increase in juvenile justice plan expenditures (Special Fund*) due to a) eligibility for grant funding extended beyond programs to include strategies and system enhancements, including the implementation of any recommendations made by the BSCC on the standardization of disaggregation of data, and, b) the more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements on local agencies. To the extent allocations are expended in full each year, a portion of existing funding would potentially be shifted from programs to support administrative activities.
*Local Revenue Fund 2011 (Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount and Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account)
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill required the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload, performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state's flawed data collection system, which does not consistently separate ethnicity from race. With many Latinos being classified as white or African American, it is currently impossible to determine the full scope of the unequal treatment of Latinos at key decision points in the juvenile justice system.
"Gathering accurate race and ethnicity data from youth involved in the juvenile justice system allows for better understanding of trends, policy effects, and inequities by legislators, the public, and state or federal agencies.
"AB 1998 will ensure that Latinos are counted as Latinos by their race and ethnicity in the Juveniles Justice System. It would do this by directing the Board of State and Community Corrections to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate caseload and data by race and ethnicity. In doing this, AB 1998 will enable policy-makers and social justice advocates to take adequate actions to address the issue of Latino over incarceration in California."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004330
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1998
:
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SOURCE: NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
DIGEST: This bill 1) requires the Board of State and Community Corrections, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity; and 2) consolidates and revises the data that is required to be collected and reported for two major state juvenile justice grant programs, as specified.
Existing law:
- Requires, generally, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to collect specified crime-related data, and to prepare an annual report of crime-related statistics, as specified. (Penal Code § 13010.)
- Establishes the “Board of State and Community Corrections” (“BSCC”), as specified.
- Establishes within the BSCC the “California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies,” with a report that was due and produced earlier this year. (Penal Code § 6032.)
- Establishes the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (“JJCPA”), including the establishment in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) to receive funding from the state, as specified. (Government Code § 30061 et seq.)
This bill:
- Requires the BSCC, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
- Revises and recasts the data collection and reporting requirements for counties for multiagency juvenile justice plans under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) and juvenile justice development plans supported by the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program, and requires consolidation of the information to be reported annually to the BSCC, as specified.
- Authorizes the BSCC to (1) consolidate the annual report to the Legislature and the Governor for the JJCPA with the annual report required under the YOBG program, (2) provide technical assistance to counties for promoting compliance with plan and reporting requirements, and, (3) monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by grant funds and to enforce violations of grant requirements.
- Expands eligibility for grant funding for multiagency juvenile justice plans and youthful offender programs to include strategies and system enhancements.
Background
Juvenile justice data collection in California has long been an issue of concern among many juvenile justice advocates and experts. In its September 1994 report, The Juvenile Crime Challenge: Making Prevention a Priority (http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html), the Little Hoover Commission stated:
The current lack of data on costs across jurisdictional levels, case outcomes and comprehensive recidivism tracking makes it difficult to make informed and rational policy decisions.
In its final report dated September of 1996, the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Response stated:
Throughout testimony to the Task Force and throughout this report, reference is made to the lack of research and statistics about the juvenile justice system . . . This paucity of good information for decision-making makes the work of the research and statistical community in California's governmental agencies, academic institutions, and private research firms much more difficult. . . .
At the deepest end of the system, the chapter on Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court cites a list of unanswered research questions on fitness and waiver policy in California. This list included such questions as: "How many motions for waiver or fitness hearings are filed? For which offenders and offenses? What are the county-specific rates, and what is the variation across counties?"
Twenty years later, in January 2016, a report produced by a working group of the BSCC (required by AB 1468 in 2014) concluded that California continues to have “critical gaps, fractures and omissions in the total foundation and framework of the state’s juvenile justice data system.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:
The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis states:
- BSCC: One-time and ongoing costs potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund) for additional workload to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice data, and provide technical assistance on plan and reporting requirements. Potential future administrative cost savings (General Fund) through submittal of a consolidated annual report to the Legislature to include the additional information submitted by counties.
- Local agencies: Potentially significant increase in one-time and near-term local agency costs (Special Fund*), potentially state-reimbursable or subject to Proposition 30 funding provisions, in whole or in part (General Fund), to develop/update multiagency juvenile justice plans, including information on strategies and system enhancements, and to conduct more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting. Administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5 percent of a local entity’s annual SLESA allocation. To the extent additional administrative costs are incurred by a county above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (General Fund). To the extent the required consolidation of reporting to the BSCC results in workload efficiencies could potentially result in administrative cost savings in future years.
- JJCPA and YOBG expenditures: Potentially significant future increase in juvenile justice plan expenditures (Special Fund*) due to (1) eligibility for grant funding extended beyond programs to include strategies and system enhancements, including the implementation of any recommendations made by the BSCC on the standardization of disaggregation of data, and, (2) the more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements on local agencies. To the extent allocations are expended in full each year, a portion of existing funding would potentially be shifted from programs to support administrative activities.
NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All (source)
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Chief Probation Officers of California
Commonweal the Juvenile Justice Project
National Association of Social Workers California Chapter
Pacific Juvenile Defender Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/11/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Jones-Sawyer
8/15/16 19:36:15
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1998 (Campos) - Juveniles: data collection
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
AB 1998 would do the following:
- Require the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
- Revise and recast the data collection and reporting requirements for counties for multiagency juvenile justice plans under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) and juvenile justice development plans supported by the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program, and would require consolidation of the information to be reported annually to the BSCC, as specified.
- Authorize the BSCC to (1) consolidate the annual report to the Legislature and the Governor for the JJCPA with the annual report required under the YOBG program, (2) provide technical assistance to counties for promoting compliance with plan and reporting requirements, and, (3) monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by grant funds and to enforce violations of grant requirements.
- Expand eligibility for grant funding for multiagency juvenile justice plans and youthful offender programs to include strategies and system enhancements.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on August 11, 2016
Fiscal Impact:
- BSCC: One-time and ongoing costs potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund) for additional workload to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice data, and provide technical assistance on plan and reporting requirements. Potential future administrative cost savings (General Fund) through submittal of a consolidated annual report to the Legislature to include the additional information submitted by counties.
- Local agencies: Potentially significant increase in one-time and near-term local agency costs (Special Fund*), potentially state-reimbursable or subject to Proposition 30 funding provisions, in whole or in part (General Fund), to develop/update multiagency juvenile justice plans, including information on strategies and system enhancements, and to conduct more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting. Administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5 percent of a local entity’s annual SLESA allocation. To the extent additional administrative costs are incurred by a county above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (General Fund). To the extent the required consolidation of reporting to the BSCC results in workload efficiencies could potentially result in administrative cost savings in future years.
- JJCPA and YOBG expenditures: Potentially significant future increase in juvenile justice plan expenditures (Special Fund*) due to (1) eligibility for grant funding extended beyond programs to include strategies and system enhancements, including the implementation of any recommendations made by the BSCC on the standardization of disaggregation of data, and, (2) the more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements on local agencies. To the extent allocations are expended in full each year, a portion of existing funding would potentially be shifted from programs to support administrative activities.
*Local Revenue Fund 2011 (Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount and Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account)
Author Amendments:
Adds uncodified findings and declarations to clarify legislative intent and makes other technical changes.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1998 (Campos) - Juveniles: data collection
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
AB 1998 would do the following:
- Require the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
- Revise and recast the data collection and reporting requirements for counties for multiagency juvenile justice plans under the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) and juvenile justice development plans supported by the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) program, and would require consolidation of the information to be reported annually to the BSCC, as specified.
- Authorize the BSCC to (1) consolidate the annual report to the Legislature and the Governor for the JJCPA with the annual report required under the YOBG program, (2) provide technical assistance to counties for promoting compliance with plan and reporting requirements, and, (3) monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by grant funds and to enforce violations of grant requirements.
- Expand eligibility for grant funding for multiagency juvenile justice plans and youthful offender programs to include strategies and system enhancements.
Fiscal Impact:
- BSCC: One-time and ongoing costs potentially in excess of $50,000 (General Fund) for additional workload to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice data, and provide technical assistance on plan and reporting requirements. Potential future administrative cost savings (General Fund) through submittal of a consolidated annual report to the Legislature to include the additional information submitted by counties.
- Local agencies: Potentially significant increase in one-time and near-term local agency costs (Special Fund*), potentially state-reimbursable or subject to Proposition 30 funding provisions, in whole or in part (General Fund), to develop/update multiagency juvenile justice plans, including information on strategies and system enhancements, and to conduct more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting. Administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5 percent of a local entity’s annual SLESA allocation. To the extent additional administrative costs are incurred by a county above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (General Fund). To the extent the required consolidation of reporting to the BSCC results in workload efficiencies could potentially result in administrative cost savings in future years.
- JJCPA and YOBG expenditures: Potentially significant future increase in juvenile justice plan expenditures (Special Fund*) due to (1) eligibility for grant funding extended beyond programs to include strategies and system enhancements, including the implementation of any recommendations made by the BSCC on the standardization of disaggregation of data, and, (2) the more robust data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements on local agencies. To the extent allocations are expended in full each year, a portion of existing funding would potentially be shifted from programs to support administrative activities.
*Local Revenue Fund 2011 (Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount and Youthful Offender Block Grant Special Account)
Background:
AB 1468 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 26/2014, established the California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) within the BSCC. Members of the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group are designated by statute and include experts and practitioners representing courts, probation, county government, state data agencies, academia, and youth service and advocacy organizations.
The JJDWG is tasked with recommending options to improve, upgrade and modernize state and local juvenile justice data systems in California, with a report due to the Legislature in January 2016. In addition, by April 30, 2015, the JJDWG must submit recommendations to the BSCC Board on improved reporting requirements for two major juvenile justice grant programs—the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and Youthful Offender Block Grant. Those recommendations must include “streamlining and consolidating current requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection.”
This bill seeks to make the statutory changes required to effectuate several of the recommendations included in the JJDWG report.
Additionally, in the JJDWG executive summary entitled “Rebuilding California’s Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to improve data collection, performance measures and outcomes for California youth, (January 2016),” the summary describes the current Juvenile Detention Profile Survey as lacking crucial information about juveniles in detention, including characteristic data such as race and ethnicity.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require the BSCC, by January 1, 2018, to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity. Additionally, this bill:
- Revises data collection and reporting requirements under the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) of 2000, as follows:
- Provides that the plan described above shall be reviewed and updated (deleting revised), and authorizes instead of requires a revised plan to be approved by the county board of supervisors, as specified.
- Provides that the plan or updated plan be submitted to the BSCC “in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual YOBG plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to WIC § 1961.”
- Revises the reference in this section from “juvenile justice plans” to a “multiagency juvenile justice plan.”
- Expands requirements to include not only a description of the programs, but also the strategies or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded.
- To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded, requires each county or city and county to submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the BSCC on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded. Requires the report to be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the YOBG program. Requires the report to include all of the following:
- An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
- An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
- A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and YOBG funds provided under Chapter 1.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
- Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the BSCC, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
- Requires the BSCC, within 45 days of having received the county’s report, to post on its internet website a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
- Revises existing requirements to instead require BSCC to compile the local reports and, by March 1 following the October 1 submission and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for this program. “The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified.”
- Authorizes the BSCC to “consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by WIC § 1961(d) for the YOBG program. The annual report shall be . . . posted for access by the public on the Internet website of the board.”
- Revises data collection and reporting requirements under the YOBG program, as follows:
- Deletes the requirement in this subdivision that counties report on proposed expenditures, and instead would require counties to report on proposed “programs, strategies and system enhancements.”
- Provides that these reports be consolidated with the JJCPA report
- Requires “countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.”
- Requires a description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using YOBG and JJCPA funds, as specified.
- Makes additional technical conforming changes to this section
- Revises existing provisions of law to update its references, to delete the reference to the Corrections Standards Authority and the Division of Juvenile Facilities, and to state that the BSCC may provide technical assistance “for the purpose of encouraging and promoting compliance with plan and report requirements” described in this bill, as specified, and authorizes the BSCC to monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by block grant funds allocated pursuant to this chapter and may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.
Related Legislation: SB 1031 (Hancock) 2016 would have required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a design structure and implementation plan for the California Juvenile Justice Information System (CJJIS) by January 1, 2018, and establish and implement the CJJIS on or before July 1, 2019. SB 1031would have appropriated an unspecified sum from the General Fund to the DOJ for the purpose of funding the development of the design structure and implementation plan for the CJJIS. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this Committee.
Prior Legislation:
AB 1468 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 26/2014 established the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) within the BSCC and states: “[t]he purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies.” The working group includes representatives from affected state agencies (BSCC, DOJ, DJJ), courts, counties, probation, research experts, and children’s advocacy organizations.
Staff Comments:
The BSCC has indicated minor and absorbable costs to comply with the provisions of this measure, including the one-time workload to develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations on how to disaggregate juvenile justice data by race and ethnicity. Staff notes that the BSCC may experience an increase in workload in the near term to provide greater technical assistance to counties in response to the revised data collection and reporting requirements in this bill.
Prior to 2011 public safety realignment, the JJCPA and YOBG grant programs were both funded by annual appropriations of state funds to local county governments to support the programs and operations authorized by statute. In 2011, funds for these grants were incorporated into the public safety realignment plan that moved multiple state-funded operations and funding into local realignment accounts. After enactment of 2011 public safety realignment, funds for both the YOBG and JJCPA grant programs have been deposited annually by the state Controller in these county-level public safety realignment accounts. Each county’s share is determined by allocation formulas contained in the enabling statutes.
For FY 2014-15, the statewide annual JJCPA allocation was $107 million, funded through a combination of vehicle license fee and sales tax revenues. The statewide YOBG allocation depends on annual sales tax receipts. The total YOBG allocation for FY 2013-14 was $104.3 million, with an additional $9.2 million in growth funds. For FY 2014-15, the total YOBG allocation, including growth funds, was estimated to increase to nearly $130 million, depending on actual sales tax receipts during the calculation year.
This bill requires counties to develop and update multiagency juvenile justice plans, including information on strategies and system enhancements. Additionally, counties are required to collect, analyze, and report additional and more detailed information to the BSCC, in a format to be specified by the BSCC, on its funded programs. The additional one-time and ongoing local agency administrative costs for these activities are unknown, but could be significant. Under existing law, administrative overhead costs are capped at 0.5 percent of a local entity’s annual SLESA allocation. To the extent the mandated activities result in a county expending administrative costs above the cap could potentially be subject to mandate reimbursement by the state or require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), should the amount of available funding for these activities be insufficient to cover these costs.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1998 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Author: | Campos | ||
Version: | June 16, 2016 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | AA | ||
Subject: Juveniles: Data Collection
HISTORY
Source: NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
Prior Legislation: AB 1913 (Cardenas) – Ch. 353, Stats. 2000.
Support: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (prior version); Chief Probation Officers of California; Commonweal the Juvenile Justice Project; National Association of Social Workers California Chapter (prior version); Pacific Juvenile Defender Association (prior version)
Opposition: None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require the Board of State and Community Corrections, by January 1, 2018, to “develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity;” and 2) consolidate and revise the data that is required to be collected and reported for two major state juvenile justice grant programs, as specified.
Juvenile Justice Data
Current law generally requires Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to collect specified crime-related data, and to prepare an annual report of crime-related statistics, as specified. (Penal Code § 13010.)
Current law provides that DOJ “may serve as statistical and research agency to the Department of Corrections, the Board of Prison Terms, the Board of Corrections, the Department of the Youth Authority, and the Youthful Offender Parole Board.” (Penal Code § 13011.)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime statistics report, DOJ shall provide statistics showing the “administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents,” (Penal Code § 13012(a)(3) and the “administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.” (Penal Code § 13012(a)(4).)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime statistics report, DOJ “shall include the following information:
(1) The annual number of fitness hearings held in the juvenile courts under Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the outcomes of those hearings including orders to remand to adult criminal court, cross-referenced with information about the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose cases are the subject of those fitness hearings.
(2) The annual number of minors whose cases are filed directly in adult criminal court under Sections 602.5 and 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, cross-referenced with information about the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose cases are filed directly to the adult criminal court.
(3) The outcomes of cases involving minors who are prosecuted in adult criminal courts, regardless of how adult court jurisdiction was initiated, including whether the minor was acquitted or convicted, or whether the case was dismissed and returned to juvenile court, including sentencing outcomes, cross-referenced with the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors subject to these court actions. . . . (Penal Code § 13012.5.)
Current law requires DOJ to collect “data pertaining to the juvenile justice system for criminal history and statistical purposes. This information shall serve to assist the department in complying with the reporting requirement of subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 13012, measuring the extent of juvenile delinquency, determining the need for and effectiveness of relevant legislation, and identifying long-term trends in juvenile delinquency. Any data collected pursuant to this section may include criminal history information which may be used by the department to comply with the requirements of Section 602.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (Penal Code § 13010.5.)
Current law establishes the “Board of State and Community Corrections” (“BSCC”), as specified. (Penal Code § 6024.) Current law provides the following mission for the BSCC:
The mission of the board shall include providing statewide leadership, coordination, and technical assistance to promote effective state and local efforts and partnerships in California’s adult and juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing gang problems. This mission shall reflect the principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional practices, including, but not limited to prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision, and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment strategy that fits each county and is consistent with the integrated statewide goal of improved public safety through cost-effective, promising, and evidence-based strategies for managing criminal justice populations. (Penal Code § 6024(b).)
Current law establishes within the BSCC the “California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies,” with a report that was due and produced earlier this year. (Penal Code § 6032.)
This bill would require the BSCC, by January 1, 2018, to “develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.”
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (“JJCPA”)
Current law establishes the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (“JJCPA”), including the establishment in each county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) to receive funding from the state, as specified. (Government Code § 30061 et seq.)
Current law requires that of this funding, half goes to the county or city and county “to implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plan . . . .. The juvenile justice plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating council in each county and city and county,” as specified. (Gov’t Code § 30061(b)(4).)
This bill would revise this language to instead provide that the plan described above shall be reviewed and updated (deleting revised), and authorizes instead of requires a revised plan to be approved by the county board of supervisors or mayor, as specified.
This bill additionally provides that plan or updated plan be submitted to the BSCC “in a format specified by the board that consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”
The bill also revises the reference in this section from “juvenile justice plans” to a “multiagency juvenile justice plan.”
Current law requires that these plans include, but not be limited to, all of the following components:
(i) An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation, education, mental health, health, social services, drug and alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their families.
(ii) An identification and prioritization of the neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales, firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and alcohol use.
(iii) A local juvenile justice action strategy that provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.
(iv) Programs identified in clause (iii) that are proposed to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including the projected amount of funding for each program. (Gov’t Code § 30061(b)(4).)
This bill would revise these requirements to include a description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that are proposed to be funded.
Current law requires that programs proposed to be funded shall satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i) Be based on programs and approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention, intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii) Collaborate and integrate services of all the resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to the extent appropriate.
(iii) Employ information sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice programs and strategies.
(iv) Adopt goals related to the outcome measures that shall be used to determine the effectiveness of the local juvenile justice action strategy. (Gov’t Code § 30061(b)(4)(B).)
This bill would revise this language to reference “programs, strategies and system enhancements” instead of programs.
This bill also would delete requirement (iv) described above.
Current law requires juvenile justice plans under this program to “also identify the specific objectives of the programs proposed for funding and specified outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of the programs and contain an accounting for all program participants, including those who do not complete the programs. Outcome measures of the programs proposed to be funded shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(i) The rate of juvenile arrests per 100,000 population.
(ii) The rate of successful completion of probation.
(iii) The rate of successful completion of restitution and court-ordered community service responsibilities.
(iv) Arrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of program participants.
(v) Quantification of the annual per capita costs of the program. (Gov’t Code § 30061(b)(4)(C).)
This bill would delete this subparagraph, and replace it with the following:
To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit by October 1 of each year a report to the county board of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The report shall be in a format specified by the board that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report shall include all of the following:
- An updated description of the programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
- An accounting of expenditures during the immediately preceding fiscal year for each program, strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to this chapter.
- A description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using funds provided under this chapter and Youthful Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
- Countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the Board of State and Community Corrections, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.
This bill would require the BSCC, within 45 days of having received the county’s report, to post on its Internet Web site a description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to the county under this chapter.
Current law requires the BSCC to compile the local reports and, by March 15, 2003, and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature on program expenditures within each county and city and county from the appropriation under this program, on the outcomes of the programs funded by this program as specified, and the statewide effectiveness of the comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans. (Gov’t Code § (b)(4)(E)(ii).)
This bill would revise this requirement to instead require BSCC to compile the local reports and, by March 1 following the October 1 submission and annually thereafter, make a report to the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs, strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures made by each county and city and county from the appropriation made for this program. “The annual report to the Governor and the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified.”
This bill would authorize the BSCC to “consolidate the annual report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block Grant program. The annual report shall be . . . posted for access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board.”
Youthful Offender Block Grant
Current law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant for the purpose of enhancing “the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to youthful offenders,” as specified. (WIC § 1951.)
Current law requires each county to prepare and submit to the BSCC for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund, as specified. (WIC § 1961(a).)
This bill would delete the requirement in this subdivision that counties report on proposed expenditures, and instead would require counties to report on proposed “programs, strategies and system enhancements.”
Current law requires that the plan required under this section include all of the following:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies to be funded by the YOBG.
(2) The proposed expenditures of block grant funds for each program, placement, service, strategy, or for any other item, activity, or operation.
(3) A description of how the plan relates to or supports the county’s overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders, as specified.
(4) A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to be supported by the YOBG.
(5) A description of how the programs, placements, services, or strategies identified in the plan coordinate with JJCPA programs. (WIC § 1961(a).)
This bill would delete paragraph (2) above, concerning proposed expenditures of block grant funds.
Current law requires that the plan required by these provisions be submitted as specified. (WIC § 1961(b).)
This bill would revise this language to update it, and to provide that the plan conform to a format that consolidates with the JJCPA plan, as specified.
Current law requires counties receiving YOBG grants to submit annual reports, as specified, including all of the following:
1) A description of the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the county’s expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
2) Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following:
- The number of youth served including their characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity.
- As relevant to the program, placement, service, or strategy, the rate of successful completion by youth.
- For any program or placement supported by block grant funds, the arrest, rearrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates of youth in any program or placement.
- Quantification of the annual per capita cost of the program, placement, strategy, or activity. (WIC § 1961(c).)
This bill would provide that these reports be consolidated with the JJCPA report, as specified.
This bill would delete (a) and (b) above.
This bill would require “countywide juvenile justice trend data available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on available information, of how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data trends identified in the report.”
This bill would require a description and expenditure report for programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using YOBG and JJCPA funds, as specified.
This bill would make additional technical conforming changes to this section.
Current law requires BSCC to prepare and make available to the public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county YOBG reports, as specified. (WIC § 1961(d).)
This bill would revise these requirements, including requiring that the annual report to also summarize the countywide trend data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements supported by YOBG funds have or may have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified. This bill also would give the BSCC authority to consolidate this annual report with the report required for JJCPA, as specified.
Current law authorizes BSCC to modify the performance outcome measures specified in this section, as specified. (WIC § 1961(e).)
This bill deletes this authority.
Current statute provides that the BSCC, “in consultation with the Division of Juvenile Facilities, may provide technical assistance to counties, including, but not limited to, regional workshops, prior to issuing any Request for Proposal,” and provides that the BSCC “may monitor and inspect any programs or facilities supported by” YOBG block grant funds, and “may enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds.”
This bill revises this provision to update its references, to delete the reference to the Division of Juvenile Facilities, and to state that the BSCC may provide technical assistance “for the purpose of encouraging and promoting compliance with plan and report requirements” described in this bill, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
- 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
- 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
- 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as “of December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February 2015.” (Defendants’ December 2015 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity, and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. (Defendants’ December 2014 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:
- Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
- Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
- Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
- Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
- Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
- Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state’s flawed data collection system, which does not consistently disaggregate race from ethnicity in the justice system. With many Hispanics/ Latinos being classified as white or African American, it is currently impossible to determine the full scope of the unequal treatment of Latinos at key decision points in the juvenile justice system
The California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group published an executive summary of their findings in January 2016 entitled “Rebuilding California’s Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to improve data collection, performance measures and outcomes for California youth.” The summary describes the current Juvenile Detention Profile Survey as lacking crucial information about juveniles in detention, “such as race/ethnicity.” Including race and ethnicity is among the working group’s recommendations.
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf
The complete degree of Latino mistreatment is unknown due to the lack of comprehensive information resulting from inadequate data gathering practices. Currently, most localities fail to separate race and ethnicity categories when surveying Hispanic youth. For example, most questionnaires do not allow a youth to identify his or her race (physical characteristic) as black and his ethnicity (cultural factor) as Hispanic. They are forced to choose one or the other. Because of this, many Latino youth are classifying themselves based solely on their race (black, white, other) resulting in the underreporting of Latinos in the justice system.
- Recent Amendments
This bill was recently amended to revise its language concerning the BSCC addressing how juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data might best be disaggregated by race and ethnicity. More significantly, the bill was amended to include revisions to reporting language included in two significant juvenile justice state funding programs: the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, and the Youthful Offender Block Grant. In April of last year, a Working Group of the BSCC on Juvenile Justice Data recommended revising these existing provisions, stating in part:
The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), adopted in 2000, supports an array of local youth crime prevention and juvenile justice supervision programs. The Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG) provides counties with resources to manage the caseload of non-violent juvenile offenders shifted from state to local control under California’s juvenile justice realignment law (Senate Bill 81, Statues of 2007). In Fiscal Year 2013-14 these grant programs provided counties with $220 million in juvenile justice system funds.
The need to review JJCPA and YOBG reporting requirements was driven by a growing recognition that current statutory reporting requirements are producing disjointed and unreliable data that are not useful in assessing the overall performance of the grants or the juvenile justice systems they support. Additionally, a 2012 report from the California State Auditor was critical of the approach used to report outcomes for the YOBG program, citing poor methodology and flaws in sampling.[1]
- Support
Commonweal, which supports this bill, states in part:
Nearly all of the proposed YOBG and JJCPA changes in AB 1998 derive from the recommendations of the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. As constituted by AB 1468 in 2014, the JJDWG was charged with recommending a plan “for improving the current juvenile justice reporting requirements” of the two grant programs “including streamlining and consolidating current requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection”. Members of the Working Group included representatives of affected state agencies (BSCC, DOJ, DJJ), probation (CPOC), courts (Judicial Council), counties (CSAC), research experts and children’s advocacy organizations. The JJDWG spent six months reviewing the grant programs and submitted its report and recommendations to BSCC in April of 2015. . . .
In summary, the JJDWG drew the following observations and conclusions upon review of current JJCPA and YOBG plan and report requirements.
- There is needless duplication of county effort in having to produce separate plans and annual reports to BSCC for two grant programs having similar (if not identical) target populations and juvenile justice system support goals. This is also true of the current requirement that BSCC must produce separate annual reports to the Legislature on the two overlapping grant programs.
- The outcome measures specified in the YOBG and JJCPA statutes are flawed because they lack standard definitions; they are not adequately supported by available data; and they are of limited or poor utility to the juvenile justice agencies providing the information and to the policymakers reviewing it. (For example, reports of probation violations, based on no standard protocols for what violations or behaviors should be counted, have very low value as indicators of youth or program success).
- Given these factors, the JJDWG made a number of recommendations to improve the reporting requirements for the grant programs “without sacrificing meaningful data collection”, as summarized below.
. . . In our view the statutory changes for the YOBG and JJCPA grant programs, as contained in AB 1998, include and will implement nearly all of the grant-related recommendations of the broadly representative Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. The Working Group’s recommended elimination of unworkable statutory outcome measures is counter-balanced by an alternate reporting approach that is viewed as more relevant and informative, using data-based indicators of grant program effectiveness in each participating county. In all, the revisions as proposed will yield a net reduction in workload and will eliminate needless duplication of forms and reports, both for counties and for BSCC (by consolidating plans and reports into single-submission formats). In short, we believe the YOBG/JJCPA grant provisions as proposed for inclusion in AB 1998 respond adequately to the Legislature’s interest in “streamlining and consolidating grant report requirements without sacrificing meaningful data collection” (excerpt from the AB 1468 mandate setting up the JJDWG). If the revisions fail to move forward, counties will remain pinned down with outcome measures that JJDWG expert-group has determined to be flawed and ineffective as indicators of grant program success or failure, and both counties and BSCC will continue to generate duplicate reports that could otherwise be consolidated for better efficiency.
For these reasons we urge your support of AB 1998 with respect of the JJCPA and YOBG grant reporting changes.
- Background – Data by Race and Ethnicity
This bill would require the BSCC to “develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.”
The BSCC website states:
The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) has long recognized the significance of disproportionality and its effect on California’s youth and families. The goal of the Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities (R.E.D.)* Initiative is to create a fair and equitable juvenile justice system. Through the leadership of the State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (SACJJDP) and the R.E.D. Subcommittee, the BSCC is committed to reducing racial and ethnic disparity across the justice system. The BSCC uses a multi-faceted approach, with system-reform as the framework. The R.E.D. activities are fluid and consist of a three-track initiative framed by data-driven decision making, implicit bias trainings, and technical assistance, to include: 1) direct service through grants aimed at reducing racial and ethnic disparity; 2) education/awareness through our implementation of educational mandates for grantees and stakeholders; and, 3) support through both resources and advocacy.
The State R.E.D. Subcommittee uses intentional, collaborative, and multi-faceted approaches to eliminate bias and reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system.
(*Previously Disproportionate Minority Contact – DMC)
In its July 15, 2013 assessment on California Disproportionate Minority Contact report, the BSCC, through its State DMC Subcommittee, explained:
California is committed to reducing racial and ethnic disparities among youth in contact with the justice system. The statewide population is diverse, boasting a population that is majority (60%) people of color according to the U.S. Census. As such, working toward a climate of fairness and equity with respect to rates of contact along the justice continuum is paramount. In California, 13 counties have been engaged in efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who are in contact with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Through the Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Project (DMC TAP), California has offered intensive information, training, and technical assistance to support these and other efforts associated with the reduction of DMC (Disproportionate Minority Contact). The counties in receipt of support
services include six original DMC TAP sites, which were funded between 2010 to 2013: Alameda County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz. In 2011, seven additional counties received specific TAP funding, which will continue through 2014: Fresno County, Humboldt County, Marin County, Orange County, Sacramento County, Ventura County, and Yolo County. . . .
As one of the largest states in the U.S., California is divided into 58 counties. In local California counties, there are 120 juvenile detention facilities including 58 camps, 58 juvenile halls and four special purpose juvenile halls (small facilities designed for short periods of detention). Fifty-three (53) counties have at least one juvenile hall. Thirty-three counties have at
least one camp. Los Angeles County, which is the largest in California in terms of general population, has three juvenile halls and 19 camps. On a typical day in the fourth quarter of 2011, nearly 8,000 juveniles were housed in local juvenile detention facilities. Another 1,700 juveniles were “detained” (i.e., receiving custody credits) in home detention or another form of alternative confinement (e.g., work programs, day schools and special purpose juvenile halls).
The report notes that data disaggregated by race and gender were not available from existing BSCC surveys for its studies. At the time of the report, 13 counties received funding for the DMC TAP. As part of that effort, in Alameda, Los Angles, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Humboldt, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, Ventura and Yolo counties,
the W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) used local data to identify whether and to what extent youth of color are overrepresented at various decision-making points in the juvenile justice system. In San Diego, the San Diego Association of Governments was the technical assistance provider, and was “heavily guided by the local data provided by the San Diego County Probation department and partners.” With respect to these 13 participating counties, which collected race and ethnicity data, the report notes, “(a)nalysis reveals progressive improvements
with respect to decreasing disparity for several counties at different decision points.”
The findings of this report show that California’s DMC Counties have been able to, at various points, reduce both the number of Youth of Color in contact with the justice system and, at various points, reduce the disproportionate rates at which specific racial and ethnic groups are in contact with the justice system. Data limitations challenge the development of overarching observations regarding progress and opportunity for improvement statewide; however, the findings of this report show where specific jurisdictions have been able to make important and measurable strides toward reducing the representation of Youth of Color in contact with the justice system and reducing their contact rates relative to their White counterparts.
5. Background: Juvenile Data a Longstanding Issue
Juvenile justice data collection in California has long been an issue of concern among many juvenile justice advocates and experts. In its September 1994 report, The Juvenile Crime Challenge: Making Prevention a Priority[2], the Little Hoover Commission stated:
The current lack of data on costs across jurisdictional levels, case outcomes and comprehensive recidivism tracking makes it difficult to make informed and rational policy decisions.
In its final report dated September of 1996, the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Response[3] stated:
Throughout testimony to the Task Force and throughout this report, reference is made to the lack of research and statistics about the juvenile justice system . . . This paucity of good information for decision-making makes the work of the research and statistical community in California's governmental agencies, academic institutions, and private research firms much more difficult. . . .
At the deepest end of the system, the chapter on Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court cites a list of unanswered research questions on fitness and waiver policy in California. This list included such questions as: "How many motions for waiver or fitness hearings are filed? For which offenders and offenses? What are the county-specific rates, and what is the variation across counties?"
Twenty years later, in January 2016, a report produced by a working group of the Board of State and Community Corrections (required by AB 1468 in 2014) concluded that California continues to have “critical gaps, fractures and omissions in the total foundation and framework of the state’s juvenile justice data system.” [4]
-- END –
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%204-30-15%20JJCPA-YOBG%20 Report%20FINAL %205.15%20cc.pdf. ↑
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html. ↑
Created by AB 2428 (Epple) (Ch. 454, Stats. 1994), the Task Force was chaired by Riverside District Attorney Grover Trask, and comprised of statutorily-designated members. ↑
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf. ↑
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1998 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
Author: | Campos | ||
Version: | April 5, 2016 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | AA | ||
Subject: Juveniles: Data Collection
HISTORY
Source: NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; National Association of Social Workers; California Chapter; Pacific Juvenile Defender Association
Opposition: None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the BSCC to “prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.”
Current law generally requires Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to collect specified crime-related data, and to prepare an annual report of crime-related statistics, as specified. (Penal Code § 13010.)
Current law provides that DOJ “may serve as statistical and research agency to the Department of Corrections, the Board of Prison Terms, the Board of Corrections, the Department of the Youth Authority, and the Youthful Offender Parole Board.” (Penal Code § 13011.)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime statistics report, DOJ shall provide statistics showing the “administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents,” (Penal Code § 13012(a)(3) and the “administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.” (Penal Code § 13012(a)(4).)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime statistics report, DOJ “shall include the following information:
(1) The annual number of fitness hearings held in the juvenile courts under Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the outcomes of those hearings including orders to remand to adult criminal court, cross-referenced with information about the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose cases are the subject of those fitness hearings.
(2) The annual number of minors whose cases are filed directly in adult criminal court under Sections 602.5 and 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, cross-referenced with information about the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose cases are filed directly to the adult criminal court.
(3) The outcomes of cases involving minors who are prosecuted in adult criminal courts, regardless of how adult court jurisdiction was initiated, including whether the minor was acquitted or convicted, or whether the case was dismissed and returned to juvenile court, including sentencing outcomes, cross-referenced with the age, gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors subject to these court actions. . . . (Penal Code § 13012.5.)
Current law requires DOJ to collect “data pertaining to the juvenile justice system for criminal history and statistical purposes. This information shall serve to assist the department in complying with the reporting requirement of subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 13012, measuring the extent of juvenile delinquency, determining the need for and effectiveness of relevant legislation, and identifying long-term trends in juvenile delinquency. Any data collected pursuant to this section may include criminal history information which may be used by the department to comply with the requirements of Section 602.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (Penal Code § 13010.5.)
Current law establishes the “Board of State and Community Corrections” (“BSCC”), as specified. (Penal Code § 6024.) Current law provides the following mission for the BSCC:
The mission of the board shall include providing statewide leadership, coordination, and technical assistance to promote effective state and local efforts and partnerships in California’s adult and juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing gang problems. This mission shall reflect the principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional practices, including, but not limited to prevention, intervention, suppression, supervision, and incapacitation, to promote a justice investment strategy that fits each county and is consistent with the integrated statewide goal of improved public safety through cost-effective, promising, and evidence-based strategies for managing criminal justice populations. (Penal Code § 6024(b).)
Current law establishes within the BSCC the “California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies,” with a report that was due and produced earlier this year. (Penal Code § 6032.)
This bill would require the BSCC to “prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.”
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
- 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
- 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
- 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as “of December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February 2015.” (Defendants’ December 2015 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity, and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. (Defendants’ December 2014 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:
- Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
- Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
- Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
- Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
- Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
- Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state’s flawed data collection system, which does not consistently disaggregate race from ethnicity in the justice system. With many Hispanics/ Latinos being classified as white or African American, it is currently impossible to determine the full scope of the unequal treatment of Latinos at key decision points in the juvenile justice system
The California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group published an executive summary of their findings in January 2016 entitled “Rebuilding California’s Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to improve data collection, performance measures and outcomes for California youth.” The summary describes the current Juvenile Detention Profile Survey as lacking crucial information about juveniles in detention, “such as race/ethnicity.” Including race and ethnicity is among the working group’s recommendations.
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf
The complete degree of Latino mistreatment is unknown due to the lack of comprehensive information resulting from inadequate data gathering practices. Currently, most localities fail to separate race and ethnicity categories when surveying Hispanic youth. For example, most questionnaires do not allow a youth to identify his or her race (physical characteristic) as black and his ethnicity (cultural factor) as Hispanic. They are forced to choose one or the other. Because of this, many Latino youth are classifying themselves based solely on their race (black, white, other) resulting in the underreporting of Latinos in the justice system.
- What this Bill Would Do; Existing Efforts
This bill would require the BSCC to “prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.”
The BSCC website states:
The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) has long recognized the significance of disproportionality and its effect on California’s youth and families. The goal of the Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities (R.E.D.)* Initiative is to create a fair and equitable juvenile justice system. Through the leadership of the State Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (SACJJDP) and the R.E.D. Subcommittee, the BSCC is committed to reducing racial and ethnic disparity across the justice system. The BSCC uses a multi-faceted approach, with system-reform as the framework. The R.E.D. activities are fluid and consist of a three-track initiative framed by data-driven decision making, implicit bias trainings, and technical assistance, to include: 1) direct service through grants aimed at reducing racial and ethnic disparity; 2) education/awareness through our implementation of educational mandates for grantees and stakeholders; and, 3) support through both resources and advocacy.
The State R.E.D. Subcommittee uses intentional, collaborative, and multi-faceted approaches to eliminate bias and reduce the overrepresentation of youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile justice system.
(*Previously Disproportionate Minority Contact – DMC)
In its July 15, 2013 assessment on California Disproportionate Minority Contact report, the BSCC, through its State DMC Subcommittee, explained:
California is committed to reducing racial and ethnic disparities among youth in contact with the justice system. The statewide population is diverse, boasting a population that is majority (60%) people of color according to the U.S. Census. As such, working toward a climate of fairness and equity with respect to rates of contact along the justice continuum is paramount. In California, 13 counties have been engaged in efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who are in contact with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Through the Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Project (DMC TAP), California has offered intensive information, training, and technical assistance to support these and other efforts associated with the reduction of DMC (Disproportionate Minority Contact). The counties in receipt of support
services include six original DMC TAP sites, which were funded between 2010 to 2013: Alameda County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz. In 2011, seven additional counties received specific TAP funding, which will continue through 2014: Fresno County, Humboldt County, Marin County, Orange County, Sacramento County, Ventura County, and Yolo County. . . .
As one of the largest states in the U.S., California is divided into 58 counties. In local California counties, there are 120 juvenile detention facilities including 58 camps, 58 juvenile halls and four special purpose juvenile halls (small facilities designed for short periods of detention). Fifty-three (53) counties have at least one juvenile hall. Thirty-three counties have at
least one camp. Los Angeles County, which is the largest in California in terms of general population, has three juvenile halls and 19 camps. On a typical day in the fourth quarter of 2011, nearly 8,000 juveniles were housed in local juvenile detention facilities. Another 1,700 juveniles were “detained” (i.e., receiving custody credits) in home detention or another form of alternative confinement (e.g., work programs, day schools and special purpose juvenile halls).
The report notes that data disaggregated by race and gender were not available from existing BSCC surveys for its studies. At the time of the report, 13 counties received funding for the DMC TAP. As part of that effort, in Alameda, Los Angles, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Humboldt, Marin, Orange, Sacramento, Ventura and Yolo counties,
the W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) used local data to identify whether and to what extent youth of color are overrepresented at various decision-making points in the juvenile justice system. In San Diego, the San Diego Association of Governments was the technical assistance provider, and was “heavily guided by the local data provided by the San Diego County Probation department and partners.” With respect to these 13 participating counties, which collected race and ethnicity data, the report notes, “(a)nalysis reveals progressive improvements
with respect to decreasing disparity for several counties at different decision points.”
The findings of this report show that California’s DMC Counties have been able to, at various points, reduce both the number of Youth of Color in contact with the justice system and, at various points, reduce the disproportionate rates at which specific racial and ethnic groups are in contact with the justice system. Data limitations challenge the development of overarching observations regarding progress and opportunity for improvement statewide; however, the findings of this report show where specific jurisdictions have been able to make important and measurable strides toward reducing the representation of Youth of Color in contact with the justice system and reducing their contact rates relative to their White counterparts.
3. Background: Juvenile Data a Longstanding Issue
Juvenile justice data collection in California has long been an issue of concern among many juvenile justice advocates and experts. In its September 1994 report, The Juvenile Crime Challenge: Making Prevention a Priority[1], the Little Hoover Commission stated:
The current lack of data on costs across jurisdictional levels, case outcomes and comprehensive recidivism tracking makes it difficult to make informed and rational policy decisions.
In its final report dated September of 1996, the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Response[2] stated:
Throughout testimony to the Task Force and throughout this report, reference is made to the lack of research and statistics about the juvenile justice system . . . This paucity of good information for decision-making makes the work of the research and statistical community in California's governmental agencies, academic institutions, and private research firms much more difficult. . . .
At the deepest end of the system, the chapter on Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court cites a list of unanswered research questions on fitness and waiver policy in California. This list included such questions as: "How many motions for waiver or fitness hearings are filed? For which offenders and offenses? What are the county-specific rates, and what is the variation across counties?"
Twenty years later, in January 2016, a report produced by a working group of the Board of State and Community Corrections (required by AB 1468 in 2014) concluded that California continues to have “critical gaps, fractures and omissions in the total foundation and framework of the state’s juvenile justice data system.” The report, entitled “Rebuilding California’s Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to Improve Data Collection, Performance Measures and Outcomes for California Youth,”[3] states in part:
Increasingly across the nation, state and local juvenile justice systems are expanding data collection capacity to support effective and evidence-based practices and to promote positive outcomes for justice-involved youth. Several factors help to explain this growth of interest in data-driven approaches to juvenile justice, including:
- The need for evidence to guide the adoption of practices that are safe, effective and unbiased.
- The need to control justice system costs by deploying cost-effective alternatives to incarceration.
- An expanding national body of research on adolescent development that is changing federal and state juvenile justice laws and practices.
- Recognition that the juvenile justice system must have adequate capacity to document youth outcomes if its rehabilitative goals are to be met.
Regrettably, California has allowed its state-level juvenile justice data systems to fall into a pattern of long-term decline. The technology supporting the state’s main juvenile justice data bank is antiquated and cannot be upgraded. There is no state-level capacity to track many important youth outcomes including recidivism. California’s state juvenile justice data banks are split between different agencies and are not integrated with county-level data systems. An overarching problem is that California has failed to make any significant state investment in modernizing its juvenile justice data capacity for more than two decades. While state data systems in other child-serving realms—like education and child welfare—have benefitted from major upgrades to meet contemporary needs, this has not been the case for a California juvenile justice system that processes more than 100,000 children each year. [4]
The Working Group described the following “critical deficiencies in the state’s overall capacity to collect, analyze and report juvenile justice system data. In brief summary the gap analysis found:
- Inability to track important case and outcome information on a comprehensive statewide basis. The JCPSS data repository maintained by the DOJ has severe shortcomings. Some important juvenile justice processing events are not collected through JCPSS, and the system cannot be upgraded to capture additional data. There is no statewide capacity to track important outcomes like recidivism. As presently configured, JCPSS does not support program evaluation or the comprehensive assessment of key policy reforms, such juvenile justice realignment.
- Outdated technology. The JCPSS became operational at DOJ in 2002. By modern standards, this is an antiquated information system. It is essentially “non-expandable.” Recommendation 1 addresses the need to replace this outdated technology.
- Limits of the facility data reported to BSCC; the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey. BSCC collects data from county probation departments on youth confined in local juvenile halls and probation camps or ranches. The results are posted on line in quarterly Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) reports. This is the state’s only central source of information on children confined in local juvenile justice facilities. JDPS reports are based on aggregate (not individual) data, and many important measures and data elements (such as race/ethnicity and detailed offense information) are not presently included.
- Fracturing of data collection and reporting responsibilities among different state agencies. Lacking a dedicated state juvenile justice agency, California’s juvenile justice data banks are dispersed among different state agencies. Researchers and analysts seeking to compose a coherent juvenile justice profile or picture need to jump between websites of different agencies. The information gleaned from this multi-site search may be incomplete or incompatible across systems. Economies of scale might well be achieved by consolidating these scattered juvenile justice data operations.
- Disparity of data capacity compared to other disciplines, lack of investment in juvenile justice. Other state youth serving departments or realms in California have improved the capacity and utility of the data needed to support their operations. Statewide data and case management systems at both the Department of Education and the Department of Social Services have been modernized and upgraded by supporting state appropriations. By contrast, no significant state investment or appropriation to upgrade juvenile justice data capacity has been made in recent history.
- Lack of performance outcome measures for the juvenile justice system. California lacks standard and statewide outcome performance outcome measures for the juvenile justice system. An example referenced repeatedly in this report is the lack of any standard or statewide performance outcome measure for recidivism.
- Transparency and availability of statewide juvenile justice information. California has no central website or data clearinghouse for retrieval of juvenile justice program, caseload, facility or performance outcome information. Recommendation 5 addresses this need as required by the enabling legislation for the Working Group.
-- END –
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html. ↑
Created by AB 2428 (Epple) (Ch. 454, Stats. 1994), the Task Force was chaired by Riverside District Attorney Grover Trask, and comprised of statutorily-designated members. ↑
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf. (See also, Letter to the Legislature from Board Chair Linda Penner accompanying the report, which stated in part, “The Board itself
has not had input into, nor has it reviewed, the report. ¶ The BSCC Executive Staff is reviewing the report and has identified a number of issues that require further analysis before the BSCC can provide any recommendations,
technical assistance or comments. These issues include concern about policy and fiscal impacts at both the state and county level, information technology feasibility, and infrastructure changes within California’s Executive Branch. Although the report emphasizes the need for funding to be made available to accomplish the proposed changes, the BSCC is always mindful of changes that create new mandates for counties. Finally, I believe that the Board would not support Recommendation 6 to form a statutory Task Force, Board, or Commission that is independent of (but attached to and staffed by) the BSCC.” http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Letter%20Penner %20to%20 Senate%20-%20JJDWG%20Final%20Report.pdf. ↑
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf ↑
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1998
Author:(Campos) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016
Policy Committee: | Rules | Vote: | 9 - 0 |
Public Safety | 7 - 0 |
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload, performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time cost in the $50,000 range for the BSCC to prepare the guidelines.
COMMENTS:
- Background: In 2007, the Legislature passed and the governor signed the Budget bill on Corrections, SB 81, which required the State Commission on Juvenile Justice to develop a Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and to make available, for implementation by all of the counties of the state, a number of strategies, including “Juvenile justice universal data collection elements, which shall be common to all counties.”
Each county in the state is required, as a condition of receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant fund, by October 1 of each year, to submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards Authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year.
BSCC prepares an annual “Youthful Offender Block Grant” report to the Legislature. The report includes data for Hispanic/Latino youth in county detention. In the 2015 report, BSCC did not provide comprehensive data about all youth in detention, but analyzed a sample of youth and found that approximately 54% of the sample study were Hispanic or Latino. The author asserts that inadequate data collection is singularly harmful to Latino youth.
- Purpose. According to the author, Latino youth are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. However, with many Latinos being classified as white or African-American, the extent of this problem is not well known. The flawed data collection system, does not consistently separate ethnicity from race.
The author states, “Gathering accurate race and ethnicity data from youth involved in the juvenile justice system allows for better understanding of trends, policy effects, and inequities by legislators, the public, and state or federal agencies. AB 1998 will enable policy-makers and social justice advocates to take adequate actions to address the issue of Latino over incarceration in California.”
- Support. According to NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All, “The failure to collect disaggregate data on Latinos inflates the incarceration rate of non-Hispanic white youth, further masking the inequity and disproportionality of all youth of color in confinement.
- Related Legislation. SB 1031 (Hancock), pending in Senate Appropriations, requires BSCC, on or before July 1, 2019, to establish a Juvenile Justice Information System to develop and maintain statewide statistical information, as specified. The bill, effective, January 1, 2020, will also remove the requirement that the Department of Justice collect information regarding the juvenile justice system. The bill appropriates an unspecified sum from the General Fund to the BSCC for the purpose of funding the development of a design structure and implementation plan for the Juvenile Justice Information System.
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 1468 (Assembly Committee on Budget), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2014, established the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) within BSCC and stated: “[t]he purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies.”
- AB 1050 (Dickinson), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2013, required BSCC, in consultation with certain individuals, including a county supervisor or county administrative officer, a county sheriff, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to develop definitions of specified key terms in order to facilitate consistency in local data collection, evaluation, and implementation of evidence-based programs.
Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
Consultant: Matt Dean
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:() – As Ver:April 5, 2016
SUMMARY:
Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload, performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires the State Commission on Juvenile Justice to develop a Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and to make available, for implementation by all of the counties of the state, a number of strategies, including “Juvenile justice universal data collection elements, which shall be common to all counties.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1960.5, subd. (a).)
- Requires each county in the state, as a condition of receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant fund described in Section 1951 to, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards Authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year and requires the report to be in a format specified by the authority that includes all of the following:
- A description of the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the county’s expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year; and
- Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following: the number of youth served including their characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1961, subd. (c).)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, "Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state’s flawed data collection system, which does not consistently separate ethnicity from race. With many Latinos being classified as white or African American, it is currently impossible to determine the full scope of the unequal tre3atment of Latinos at key decision points in the juvenile justice system.
“Gathering accurate race and ethnicity data from youth involved in the juvenile justice system allows for better understanding of trends, policy effects, and inequities by legislators, the public, and state or federal agencies.
“AB 1998 will ensure that Latinos are counted as Latinos by their race and ethnicity in the Juveniles Justice System. It would do this by directing the Board of State and Community Corrections to prepare guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate caseload and data by race and ethnicity. In doing this, AB 1998 will enable policy-makers and social justice advocates to take adequate actions to address the issue of Latino over incarceration in California.”
- Background: In 2007, the Legislature passed and the governor signed the Budget bill on Corrections, SB 81, which required the State Commission on Juvenile Justice to develop a Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and to make available, for implementation by all of the counties of the state, a number of strategies, including “Juvenile justice universal data collection elements, which shall be common to all counties.” (WIC Section 1960.5 (a).) The 2009 Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan provides that the “minimum person identifiers needed” to be collected by juvenile courts should include “race/ethnicity” data that is the “same as US census data.” As of the date of the 2009 report, courts collect race and ethnicity data” but not in a manner consistent with the US census. According to the Commission, “It should be possible to construct a crosswalk between JCPSS, CHS, and census categories.”
(< http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/docs/JJOMP_Final_Report.pdf >.)
Each county in the state is required, as a condition of receiving an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant fund described in Section 1951 shall, by October 1 of each year, submit an annual report to the Corrections Standards Authority on its utilization of the block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year. The report shall be in a format specified by the authority and shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the county’s expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
(2) Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services, and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The number of youth served including their characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and ethnicity. (WIC Section 1961 (c).)
BSCC prepares an annual “Youthful Offender Block Grant” report to the Legislature. The report includes data for Hispanic/Latino youth in county detention. In the 2015 report, BSCC did not provide comprehensive data about all youth in detention, but analyzed a sample of youth and found that approximately 54% of the sample study were Hispanic or Latino (See page 18 of the report).
(<http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/YOBG%20Report%20Final%204.2.2015%20mr-r.pdf >)
- Conforming California’s Definitions with Federal Definitions: The author acknowledges that these requirements are in existing law, but asserts that compliance with these requirements is inadequate.
“The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requires States to report and address “disproportionate minority contact.” Presently, the California Department of Juvenile Justice publishes semi-annual reports of race and ethnicity representation through the Juvenile Research Branch. However, the race categories (white, Hispanic, African American, Asian, Native American, Filipino, Pacific Islander, and other) currently gathered do not meet minimum federal standards for race reporting as established by either the federal 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity or the 2007 U.S. Department of Education guidance.
“As such, data from California are not compatible with reported data from other states, and federal analysis cannot research potential improvements from the Californian system. Pennsylvania, for instance, presents a model case for recoding data in a standardized format to improve accuracy and compatibility.”
The author asserts that inadequate data collection is singularly harmful to Latino youth. According to the author,
“Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are increasingly singled out by the criminal justice system. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state’s flawed data collection system, which does not consistently separate ethnicity from race throughout the justice system. With many Latinos being classified as white or African American, it is currently impossible to determine the full scope of the unequal treatment of Latinos at key decision points in the juvenile justice system.
“Gathering race and ethnicity data from youth involved in the juvenile justice system allows better understanding of trends, policy effects, and inequities by legislators, the public, and state or federal agencies.
“Additionally, this bill expands the number of data collection points. Currently, data is only reported for juveniles in juvenile detention facilities by both the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey and the Characteristics of the Department of Juvenile Justice Population report. Under this bill, data collection would occur in juvenile courts and county probation departments in addition to detention facilities. AB 1998 would ensure proper data retrieval by collecting ethnicity and race statistics separately. This will maintain that Latinos are counted as Latinos, and enable policy-makers and social justice advocates to take appropriate actions to address the issue of Latino youth incarceration in California.
“The complete degree of Latino mistreatment is unknown due to the lack of comprehensive information resulting from inadequate data gathering practices. Currently, most localities fail to separate race and ethnicity categories when surveying youth. For example, most questionnaires do not allow a youth to identify his race (physical characteristic) as black and his ethnicity (cultural factor) as Hispanic. They are forced to choose one or the other. Because of this, many Latino youth are classifying themselves based on race (black, white, other) resulting in underreporting of Latinos in the justice system. “
- Argument in Support: According to NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All, “Latino communities, especially Latino youth, bear an increasing brunt in volume of youth confined in the state of California. The extent of this problem is not well known because of our state’s flawed data collection system, which does not consistently disaggregate ethnicity (like Latino, Hispanic) from race (such as white, black, or other) throughout the entire justice system. As a result, Latinos are not counted uniformly across the various institutions that make up the juvenile justice system, and are classified as white or black, resulting in Latino underrepresentation in reporting of justice system data.
“The failure to collect disaggregate data on Latinos inflates the incarceration rate of non-Hispanic white youth, further masking the inequity and disproportionality of all youth of color in confinement. The status quo makes it impossible to oversee the full magnitude of the unequal or disparate treatment of Latino youth, or to develop comprehensive and effective policies to remedy the discrepancy particularly in the places where data shows the greatest disproportionality and/or disparity. Implementing comprehensive and accurate data collection is the first of many steps to implement proven effective and time tested detention reform models that will end the over-reliance of incarceration, save money, make critical systems improvements, increase public safety and as research has shown, increase better life outcomes for youth, their families and ultimately our communities.”
- Related Legislation: SB 1031 (Hancock) would require BSCC, on or before July 1, 2019, to establish a Juvenile Justice Information System to develop and maintain statewide statistical information, as specified. The bill would additionally, on January 1, 2020, remove the require that the Department of Justice collect information regarding the juvenile justice system. The bill would appropriate an unspecified sum from the General Fund to the BSCC for the purpose of funding the development of a design structure and implementation plan for the Juvenile Justice Information System. This bill is set for hearing in the Senate Committee on Public Safety on April 19, 2016.
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 1468 (Assembly Committee on Budget), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2014, established the Juvenile Justice Data Working Group (JJDWG) within BSCC and stated: “[t]he purpose of the working group is to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and maintained by state and county agencies.”
- AB 1050 (Dickinson), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2013, required BSCC, in consultation with certain individuals, including a county supervisor or county administrative officer, a county sheriff, and the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to develop definitions of specified key terms in order to facilitate consistency in local data collection, evaluation, and implementation of evidence-based programs.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:
Discussed in Hearing
22MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Health
37SEC
Assembly Floor
52SEC
Senate Floor
3MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety
Bill Author
