VETO  

Bill No: SB 284

Author: Beall (D)

Amended: 4/9/19

Vote: 27

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 3/26/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrell

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8, 5/2/19

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NOES: Bates, Borgeas, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-23, 9/3/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Juvenile justice: county support of wards

SOURCE: Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Works

Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement

Youth Justice Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill increases the annual rate which a county pays to the state for a person the county commits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to $125,000 if the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the court may order any of the types of treatment referred to in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 727 and 730. Authorizes the court to commit the ward to DJJ, if the ward has committed an offense described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (a)(4).)
2. Prohibits the following individuals from being committed to DJJ: a ward who is under 11 years of age; a ward who is suffering from any contagious, infectious, or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health of the other inmates of any facility; and a ward who has been or is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and the most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.)
3. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ, as provided in this subdivision. Provides that this only applies to a person who is committed to the division by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2012. Requires DJJ to present to the county, not more frequently than monthly, a claim for the amount due to the state. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (a).)
4. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ, on or after July 1, 2018, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ. Prohibits a county from paying the annual rate of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) for a person who is 23 years of age or older. Applies to a person committed to DJJ by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2018. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (b).)

This bill requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state the following rate for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ:

1. If the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than seven years, the annual rate is $125,000.
2. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger, the annual rate is $125,000.
3. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 16 years of age or older and, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of 7 years or more, the annual rate is $24,000.

Background

Between 1961 and 1996, counties paid a flat $25 fee per month per youth committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA, now DJJ) [this analysis refers to the department now known as DJJ as CYA during the years in which it was named CYA.) By the mid-1990s, the CYA population had grown to over 9,000 wards, and the department’s facilities were significantly overcrowded. (Department of the Youth Authority, Monthly Population Report as of December 31, 1996 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/research/Highest %20Facility%20Population%201995%20-%201996.pdf ; Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Analysis of the 1995-1996 Budget Bill <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_

1996/a96d2.html .) In 1995, CYA’s average annual cost of housing and caring for a ward was $31,200 per offender. (Id.)

SB 681 (Hurtt, Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996) increased the fees that counties pay to the state to $150 per month per youth, and established a sliding fee scale whereby counties were charged an increasingly higher fee for sending lower level offenders to CYA. One of the primary goals of SB 681 was to create an incentive for counties to treat less serious offenders at the local level and to invest in prevention and early intervention programs. According to an LAO analysis, in 1995, 65 percent of CYA’s wards were committed for a violent offense and the remainder were committed for nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors. (Id.) SB 681 went into effect on January 1, 1997 and had an immediate effect in reducing county commitments to CYA. (LAO, Analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1998/pdfs_anl98/crim_justice_anl98.pdf .) Specifically, county juvenile court commitments to CYA dropped 25 percent between 1996 and 1997. (Id.) In its analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill, the LAO reported that several counties had informed the LAO that they had developed local alternatives to CYA, including new ranch and camp beds as well as non-residential options, in response to the increased fees. (Id.) Initially, the additional cost to counties due to the increased fees was offset by an increase in federal funding, part of which was allocated to county probation departments. (Id.) Since that time, a number of funding mechanisms have been created to assist local governments with preventing juvenile crime, supporting alternatives to detention, and retaining youth at the county level. (See AB 1913 (Cardenas, Chapter 353, Statutes of 2000); SB 81 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007); and SB 678 (Leno, Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009).)

Several legislative measures have amended or proposed to amend the fee structure in the years since SB 681 was enacted. Proposition 21 was passed by the voters in March 2000. One of the initiative’s provisions narrowed the sliding fee scale by requiring the state to pay the full per capita cost for each person committed to CYA who has been convicted of specified gang-related offenses. (Pen. Code, §186.22, subd. (h).) AB 1758 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 158, Statutes of 2003) required the counties to pay the state $176 per month per person for commitments to CYA or a specified percentage of the per capita cost, redefined the per capita institutional cost, and required that the fee be adjusted annually for inflation.

SB 81 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007) created several significant changes to the juvenile justice system, including prohibiting the commitment of juveniles who committed non-violent, non-serious offenses to DJJ. Changes to the fee structure occurred a few years later. SB 92 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2011) established a flat fee of $125,000 per year per person committed to DJJ. However, the fee provision of SB 92 never went into effect. Instead, SB 1021 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012) replaced the fee in SB 92 and established the current flat fee of $24,000 per year per DJJ commitment as well as lowered DJJ’s maximum age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 years old. Notably, AB 1812 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018) increased the maximum age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25 under certain circumstances.

Effect of This Bill

Under current law, a county may commit a person to DJJ if the person has committed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 (b) offense or a sex offense that would require registration under Penal Code section 290.008 (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731.) DJJ currently houses youth who have committed the most serious offenses.

The sponsors of this bill argue that justice-involved youth have better outcomes when treated at the local level. A recent report published by one of the bill’s sponsors highlighted the geographic disparities with respect to placement of youth in DJJ. (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Unmet Promises: Continued Violence & Neglect in California’s Division of Juvenile Justice <http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/unmet_promises_continued _violence_and_neglect_in_california_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf .) The report noted that five counties account for nearly half of the DJJ population despite only accounting for 41 percent of the state’s 10- to 17-year-old population and 37 percent of the state’s 2017 juvenile felony arrests. (Id.) Those figures were contrasted with data showing that 16 counties with a population of more than 600,000 youth and approximately 2,400 juvenile felony arrests each held five or fewer youth in DJJ facilities. (Id.)

The intent of this bill is to incentivize counties to treat juvenile offenders who have committed less serious offenses as well as young offenders in a local setting rather than committing them to DJJ. Specifically, this bill increases the annual rate from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who:

1. Committed an offense that had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years had it been filed in adult criminal court at the time of adjudication; or
2. Committed an offense when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

This bill maintains the current $24,000 annual fee in cases in which the offense occurred when the person was 16 or older and would have faced a prison sentence of 7 years or greater had the person been tried in adult criminal court, who the sponsors argue are at the greatest risk of transfer from juvenile to adult criminal court.

The provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee based on sentence length is similar to the sliding fee scale that used to exist in that both distinguish between more and less serious offenses. However, the provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee when the person being committed to DJJ committed the offense when the person was under 16 is unique when compared to previous iterations of the fee structure.

It is worth noting that although county prosecutors have discretion with respect to filing a petition to prosecute a youth, petitioning to transfer a youth from juvenile to adult criminal court in cases that are eligible for transfer, and recommending a disposition, judges ultimately maintain discretion with respect to the treatment ordered and whether a youth is committed to DJJ.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/15/19)

Anti-Recidivism Coalition (co-source)

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (co-source)

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (co-source)

Community Works (co-source)

Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement (co-source)

Youth Justice Coalition (co-source)

ACLU of California

Bend the Arc

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Californians for Safety and Justice

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Children’s Defense Fund- California

Courage Campaign

Disability Rights California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Father and Families of San Joaquin

Freedom 4 Youth

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Further the Work

Initiate Justice

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

National Center for Youth Law

National Juvenile Justice Network

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Project Rebound at Sacramento State University

Re:Store Justice

Root & Rebound

RYSE Center

San Francisco Public Defender

Silicon Valley De-bug

Urban Peace Institute

Urban Peace Movement

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Young Women’s Freedom Center

Youth Law Center

1 individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/15/19)

California State Association of Counties

Chief Probation Officers of California

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 284 without my signature.

This bill increases the annual rate that a county must pay to the state to commit a juvenile to the Division of Juvenile Justice.

I applaud the author’s commitment to promoting effective rehabilitation for the youth in our criminal justice system. I disagree, however, that a financial disincentive to counties is necessarily the right approach to managing our state-level population. 

I have initiated the transfer of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to the California Health and Human Services Agency, and the Administration is working on the creation of a new Department of Youth and Community Restoration (DYCR). This new department will, as DJJ does now, serve a specific cohort of high-need youth who have often times have been unable to receive needed services at the county level. It is important that any re-evaluation of what type of population is served at DYCR be done with this global shift in mind, and in a manner that does not enact a blanket financial disincentive when there may be more targeted ways to meet the author’s goals.

I am committed to working with the Legislature on ensuring that the transformation of DJJ into DYCR is a success and that we manage this population of young Californians appropriately and with great care.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-23, 9/3/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Boerner Horvath, Brough, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cunningham, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gray, Irwin, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Ramos, Salas, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooper, Frazier, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, O'Donnell, Rodriguez

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

10/22/19 14:46:40

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 284

Author:(Beall)

As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Increases the fee paid by a county to the state in cases for committing a person to Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), as specified.

Major Provisions

1. Raises the fee from $24,000 to $125,000 when a county sends a person to DJJ, if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger, or if the offense has a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than seven years.
2. Applies the fee increase only in cases where the person is committed to DJJ after January 1, 2020.
3. Retains the $24,000 fee if a person is 16 years of age or older and the offense upon which the person is being committed has a maximum aggregate sentence of seven years or more.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

According to the author, "The annual cost to the state to confine youth at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) averages more than $300,000 per person, yet counties contribute only $24,000 annually per youth. Best practices show local rehabilitation is more effective; however, the current low fee incentivizes counties to send individuals to DJJ, where they are isolated from family and community-based support.

"Justice involved youth are more effectively rehabilitated in small, close to home facilities, allowing for a smooth transition back into their communities. Nearly every county in California has its own secure, probation-run facility for youth, yet they operate at just 30 percent of capacity, and many have abundant treatment space for high-needs individuals. Much of this space was paid for by the state with $300 million in construction financing.

"In order to reduce county reliance on DJJ and increase local juvenile justice innovation, SB 284 creates an incentive to keep youth closer to home by:

1. Increasing the cost of county confinement to DJJ from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who meet either of the descriptions below:
   1. Committed for an offense that occurred when under 16 years of age, or
   2. Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of fewer than 7 years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.
2. Maintain a fee of $24,000 per youth per year for cases most at risk of transfer to adult court:
   1. Committed for an offense that occurred when they were 16 or 17 years old, and
   2. Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of 7 or more years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult."

"Research shows that youth are uniquely capable of growth and change. In a supportive and safe environment, youth can thrive, heal, and acquire the skills they will need to return home safely. Having family nearby and remaining connected to community-based resources while confined is essential to youths' wellness and ensures their success upon release."

Arguments in Support:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California, "The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is costly, dangerous, and inherently ineffective at rehabilitating youth. The facilities' harsh, prison-like conditions exacerbate underlying needs and expose youth to the trauma of family separation. Deficiencies in the DJJ model are apparent in the institution's high rate of recidivism: 74% of youth are rearrested within three years of release, 54% are reconvicted for a new offense, and 37% return to a state institution.

"However, nearly every California county has its own secure, probation-run facility for youth, such as a camp, ranch, or juvenile hall. These local facilities are operating at less than one-third capacity and many have abundant treatment space for high-needs youth. Local alternatives to DJJ better align with best practices for effective rehabilitation, recommending that youth be held in small, close-to-home facilities to allow for a smooth transition back into their communities.

"Yet counties currently face a steep financial incentive to commit youth to DJJ, even when local placement or services would better address their needs. Counties pay a flat rate of $24,000 per year for youth committed to DJJ. This is just a fraction of the state's average cost of confining a youth at DJJ, which exceeds $300,000 annually, and is far less costly than most local alternatives to DJJ."

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the California State Association of Counties, "Probation departments and counties throughout California have invested millions of dollars, countless staff time, and other resources to ensure our departments reflect the values we know to guide a therapeutic and rehabilitative environment for youth. The health, welfare, and safety of the youth and our communities continue to be the guiding principles in looking at the most appropriate response based on an individual's circumstances. To this end, California counties and probation departments have clearly demonstrated a commitment to serving youth locally whenever possible, in the least restrictive setting, as evidenced by the over 74% decline in the youth committed to DJJ, and over 60% decline in juvenile detention in its entirety. In fact, over 90% of youth served in California's juvenile justice system are safely treated in the community.

"While we certainly understand the author's goal of incentivizing counties to reduce the number of youth that they send to DJJ, the final decision as to where youth are placed following adjudication is one held and decided by a juvenile court judge. This legislation will do little to prevent youth from being sent to DJJ and instead result in significant financial impacts on counties. This fiscal impact, especially in smaller counties, will negatively impact counties and the progress we have made to enhance services and could put programming for youth in jeopardy."

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. No state costs. The state currently charges counties to incarcerate juveniles at a DJJ facility.
2. Possible increase in state revenue based on an increased county reimbursement rate for juvenile referrals to DJJ. However, the additional revenue will not cover the total annual cost of incarcerating a juvenile at a DJJ facility. DJJ estimates it costs approximately $300,000 per juvenile per year to incarcerate a juvenile in DJJ. Additionally, given the increased cost for counties to send juveniles who are 15 years old or younger or sentenced to less than 7 years to DJJ, counties may decide not to stop referring juveniles to DJJ completely resulting in a drop in referrals and any additional revenue resulting from county reimbursement.
3. Likely non-reimbursable costs in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars to counties for the increased cost of housing juveniles in a DJJ facility. However, counties are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of juvenile referrals to DJJ. The California State Association of Counties points out if counties must either pay an increased cost to transfer youths to DJJ, or retain high needs juveniles on the local level, other services, including services subject to state reimbursement, may be negatively affected. This may result in an increase in state reimbursable costs.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

VOTES:

SENATE FLOOR: 30-8-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Bates, Borgeas, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-4-3

YES: Gonzalez, Bloom, Bonta, Carrillo, Chau, Eggman, Gabriel, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Robert Rivas

NO: Bigelow, Diep, Fong, Obernolte

ABS, ABST OR NV: Brough, Calderon, Eduardo Garcia

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 9, 2019

CONSULTANT: Nikki Moore (Counsel) / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001164

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 284

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill increases the annual rate from, $24,000 to $125,000, a county must pay to the state to commit a juvenile to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) if the offense on which the commitment is based, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. No state costs. The state currently charges counties to incarcerate juveniles at a DJJ facility.
2. Possible increase in state revenue based on an increased county reimbursement rate for juvenile referrals to DJJ. However, the additional revenue will not cover the total annual cost of incarcerating a juvenile at a DJJ facility. DJJ estimates it costs approximately $300,000 per juvenile per year to incarcerate a juvenile in DJJ. Additionally, given the increased cost for counties to send juveniles who are 15 years old or younger or sentenced to less than 7 years to DJJ, counties may decide not to stop referring juveniles to DJJ completely resulting in a drop in referrals and any additional revenue resulting from county reimbursement.
3. Likely non-reimbursable costs in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars to counties for the increased cost of housing juveniles in a DJJ facility. However, counties are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of juvenile referrals to DJJ. The California State Association of Counties points out if counties must either pay an increased cost to transfer youths to DJJ, or retain high needs juveniles on the local level, other services, including services subject to state reimbursement, may be negatively affected. This may result in an increase in state reimbursable costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

The annual cost to the state to confine youth at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) averages more than $300,000 per person, yet counties contribute only $24,000 annually per youth. Best practices show local rehabilitation is more effective; however, the current low fee incentivizes counties to send individuals to DJJ, where they are isolated from family and community-based support. Justice-involved youth are more effectively rehabilitated in small, close to home facilities, allowing for a smooth transition back into their communities.

1. History of Costs to Incarcerate Juveniles at DJJ. Under current law, a county may commit a person to DJJ if the person has committed a serious or violent offense as defined by existing law or a registerable sex offense and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. SB 92 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2011) established a flat fee of $125,000 per year per person committed to DJJ to the committing county.
   
   However, the fee provision of SB 92 never went into effect. Instead, SB 1021 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012) replaced SB 92 and established the current flat fee of $24,000 per year per DJJ commitment as well as lowered DJJ’s maximum age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 years old. Notably, AB 1812 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018) increased the maximum age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25 under certain circumstances. DJJ operates four facilities statewide and currently houses approximately 660 juveniles. This bill maintains the current $24,000 annual fee in cases where the offense occurred when the person was 16 or older, and the person would have faced a prison sentence of seven years or greater had the person been tried in adult criminal court.
2. DJJ Reorganization. The 2019-2020 Budget Act proposes to merge DJJ into the Health and Human Services Agency and re-name it as Youth and Community Restoration. The intent of the proposed reorganization is to focus more on juvenile rehabilitation and support rather than incarceration for even the most serious juvenile offenders.
3. Support. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California:

SB 284 presents California with an important opportunity to promote best practices for effective rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and minimize county reliance on the harmful DJJ institutions by creating an incentive for retaining youth closer to home.

1. Opposition. According to the California State Association of Counties:

This legislation will do little to prevent youth from being sent to DJJ and instead result in significant financial impacts on counties. This fiscal impact, especially in smaller counties, will negatively impact counties and the progress we have made to enhance services and could put programming for youth in jeopardy.

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 11, 2019

Counsel: Nikki Moore

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 284

Author:(Beall) – As Amended Ver:April 9, 2019

SUMMARY: Increases the fee paid by a county to the state in cases for committing a person to Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Raises the fee from $24,000 to $125,000 when a county sends a person to DJJ, if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger, or if the offense has a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than seven years.
   
2. Applies the fee increase only in cases where the person is committed to DJJ after January 1, 2020.
   
3. Retains the $24,000 fee if a person is 16 years of age or older and the offense upon which the person is being committed has a maximum aggregate sentence of seven years or more.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a person as a ward of the court if that person is any minor who is between 12 years of age and 17 years of age, inclusive, when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age; and any minor who is under the age of 12 years if that person committed an offense of: murder; rape by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; and sexual penetration by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
   
2. Provides that if a minor is adjudged a ward of the court, the court may make any reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor or nonminor, including medical treatment. Authorizes the court to commit the ward to DJJ, if the ward has committed an offense of: murder; rape by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; and sexual penetration by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation; bigamy; incest; and other specified crimes, and the ward is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (a)(4).)
   
3. Sets forth the specified crimes that are eligible for placement of a ward with DJJ. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b).)
4. Prohibits the following individuals from being committed to DJJ: a ward who is under 11 years of age; a ward who is suffering from any contagious, infectious, or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health of the other inmates of any facility; and a ward who has been or is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, and the most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not a specified offense that would warrant the ward being committed to DJJ. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.)
5. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ, as provided in this subdivision. Provides that this only applies to a person who is committed to the division by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2012. Requires DJJ to present to the county, not more frequently than monthly, a claim for the amount due to the state. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (a).)
6. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ, on or after July 1, 2018, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ. Prohibits a county from paying the annual rate of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) for a person who is 23 years of age or older. Applies to a person committed to DJJ by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2018. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “The annual cost to the state to confine youth at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) averages more than $300,000 per person, yet counties contribute only $24,000 annually per youth. Best practices show local rehabilitation is more effective; however, the current low fee incentivizes counties to send individuals to DJJ, where they are isolated from family and community-based support.
   

“Justice involved youth are more effectively rehabilitated in small, close to home facilities, allowing for a smooth transition back into their communities. Nearly every county in California has its own secure, probation-run facility for youth, yet they operate at just 30 percent of capacity, and many have abundant treatment space for high-needs individuals. Much of this space was paid for by the state with $300 million in construction financing.

“In 1961, counties began paying a flat fee of $25 per month to house youth in a state facility. In 1996, California passed SB 681 (Hurtt) which established a sliding scale fee designed to keep most youth close to home. The Legislature continued to maintain an annual fee for counties with the intent to incentivize local rehabilitation.

“In 2012, SB 1021 established the $24,000 flat fee. With the costs of local juvenile halls, camps, and ranches generally exceeding $24,000 per year, and increasing annually, counties have financial incentive to send youth to the state facility.

“Youth sent to DJJ experience trauma of separation from family, and are often exposed to violence. DJJ’s most recent recidivism report shows that 74 percent of youth released in FY 2011-12 were rearrested within three years of release, 54 percent were reconvicted for a new offense, and 37 percent returned to a state institution (DJJ or prison).

“There are extreme discrepancies in counties’ rates of sending individuals to DJJ. Taxpayers in counties that manage much or all of their high-needs youth locally still pay to support DJJ due to other counties that rely most heavily on it.

“In order to reduce county reliance on DJJ and increase local juvenile justice innovation, SB 284 creates an incentive to keep youth closer to home by:

“(1) Increasing the cost of county confinement to DJJ from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who meet either of the descriptions below:

a. Committed for an offense that occurred when under 16 years of age, or

b. Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of fewer than 7 years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.

“(2) Maintain a fee of $24,000 per youth per year for cases most at risk of transfer to adult court:

a. Committed for an offense that occurred when they were 16 or 17 years old, and

b. Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of 7 or more years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.

“Research shows that youth are uniquely capable of growth and change. In a supportive and safe environment, youth can thrive, heal, and acquire the skills they will need to return home safely. Having family nearby and remaining connected to community-based resources while confined is essential to youths’ wellness and ensures their success upon release.”

1. Prior Legislation on County Fees for DJJ Commitments: From 1961 to 1996, counties paid a $25 flat monthly fee for each youth committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA), which is now DJJ . By the mid-1990s, the CYA population exceeded 9,000 wards; the department’s facilities were significantly overcrowded. (Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Analysis of the 1995-1996 Budget Bill, Available at https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1996/a96d2.html.)
   
   In 1995, CYA’s average annual cost of housing and caring for a ward was $31,200 per offender. (Id.) SB 681 (Hurtt), Ch. 6, Stats. of 1996, increased the fee from $25 to $150 per month per youth, and established a sliding fee scale to charge counties an increasingly higher fee for sending lower level offenders to CYA. This was the first of several efforts by the Legislature to incentivize counties to keep less serious offenders located at the local level, and spur them to invest in prevention and early intervention programs. Within a year of SB 681’s passage, commitments to CYA dropped 25 percent. (LAO, Analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill, Judiciary and Criminal Justice Chapter, p. 100, pdf available at https://lao.ca.gov/Publications?Year=1998&CategoryID=3&Type
   =&phrase=.) Since then, this Legislature has passed a number of funding mechanisms to assist local governments in preventing juvenile crime, supporting alternatives to detention, and retaining youth at the county level. (See AB 1913 (Cardenas), Ch. 353, Stats. 2000; SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007; and SB 678 (Leno), Ch. 608, Stats. 2009.)
   
   The Legislature has also amended or proposed to further amend the fee structure for counties sending youths to DJJ since SB 681 was enacted. Proposition 21, passed by the voters in March 2000, narrowed the sliding fee scale and required the state to pay the full per capita cost for each person committed to CYA who is convicted of specified gang-related offenses. (Pen. Code, §186.22, subd. (h).) AB 1758, enacted in 2003, required the counties to pay the state $176 per month per person for commitments to CYA or a specified percentage of the per capita cost, and provides that the fee is to be adjusted annually for inflation.
   
   SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007, created several significant changes to the juvenile justice system, including prohibiting counties from sending to DJJ juveniles who commit non-violent, non-serious offenses. Changes to the fee structure occurred a few years later: SB 92 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2011, established a flat fee of $125,000 per year per person committed to DJJ. However, the fee provision of SB 92 never went into effect. Instead, SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 41, Stats. 2012, replaced the fee in SB 92 and established the current level, a flat fee of $24,000 per year per DJJ commitment; it also lowered DJJ’s maximum age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 years old. Notably, just last year, AB 1812 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2018, increased the maximum age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25 under certain circumstances.
   
   This bill would impose a $125,000 flat fee to be paid by a county annually per each youth committed after January 1, 2020, in specified circumstances, discussed below.
   
2. Narrow Limits on When the Increased Fee is Required: This measure seeks to incentivize counties to retain minors at local facilities in all but the most serious cases. Under this bill, the counties will face a $101,000 increase in the fee for sending to DJJ: 1) a minor under 16 years old, regardless of the crime committed; and, 2) a minor who is committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of fewer than seven years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.
   
   This bill maintains the current $24,000 annual fee in cases in which the offense occurred when the person was 16 or older, and the person would have faced a prison sentence of seven years or greater had the person been tried in adult criminal court.
   
3. Increased Fee May Endanger County Programs: SB 284 proposes a substantial increase in the fee charged to a county for sending a person to DJJ. The Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California write in opposition to the bill that the fee increase will drain funds away from other programs geared at keeping youth locally. They write, “From our counties’ perspective, DJJ is the referral of last resort. With investments in the local juvenile justice system over the last two decades and a shared commitment to the benefits of keeping as many youth as possible close to home during periods of rehabilitation and detention, the DJJ population has dropped sharply – from a high in the late 1990s of close to 10,000 to fewer than 800 youth today. From a systems perspective, it is imperative to have an alternative for specialized treatment and for populations with particularly high needs, and DJJ fills that important role in the juvenile justice continuum. An increase in the annual fee as contemplated SB 284 would simply take resources away from counties – resources that now are likely dedicated to the in-depth local prevention and intervention programming that counties invest to keep as many youth close to home as possible.”
   
4. Referrals to DJJ Vary by County: Data from 2016 show the number of arrests and the ultimate number of people sent to DJJ by county. (Maureen Washburn, Costs Rise Amid Falling Population at California’s Division of Juvenile Justice, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, p. 4-5, (2017), Available at http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/costs_rise_amid_falling_populations_at_californias_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf.) According to the 2016 data, the 10 counties with the most juvenile felony arrests, ranging from 565 arrests in San Joaquin to 4,827 in Los Angeles, sent approximately three percent of arrestees to DJJ. The County of Orange sent only two wards to DJJ in 2016 compared to 1,196 arrests. Some smaller counties send a higher rate to DJJ, for example, Contra Costa and Kings Counties sent nearly 10 percent of felony arrestees to DJJ. Analyses point out that counties that do not utilize DJJ, including Orange, San Diego, San Francisco and Santa Clara, bear a disproportionate burden of funding DJJ as compared to counties with higher utilization rates.
   
5. Argument in Support: According to the American Civil Liberties Union of California,

“The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) is costly, dangerous, and inherently ineffective at rehabilitating youth. The facilities’ harsh, prison-like conditions exacerbate underlying needs and expose youth to the trauma of family separation. Deficiencies in the DJJ model are apparent in the institution’s high rate of recidivism: 74 percent of youth are rearrested within three years of release, 54 percent are reconvicted for a new offense, and 37 percent return to a state institution.^[1]

“However, nearly every California county has its own secure, probation-run facility for youth, such as a camp, ranch, or juvenile hall. These local facilities are operating at less than one-third capacity and many have abundant treatment space for high-needs youth. Local alternatives to DJJ better align with best practices for effective rehabilitation, recommending that youth be held in small, close-to-home facilities to allow for a smooth transition back into their communities.

“Yet counties currently face a steep financial incentive to commit youth to DJJ, even when local placement or services would better address their needs. Counties pay a flat rate of $24,000 per year for youth committed to DJJ. This is just a fraction of the state’s average cost of confining a youth at DJJ, which exceeds $300,000 annually, and is far less costly than most local alternatives to DJJ. The result is extreme disparities in county rates of commitment to DJJ, with some counties relying heavily on DJJ given its low cost, while others opt for local treatment and services but must continue to subsidize DJJ through state tax dollars.

“This bill aims to reduce reliance on DJJ and boost local innovation in all counties by creating an incentive to keep youth closer to home. SB 284 establishes a two-tiered county fee that increases the annual cost of sending a youth to DJJ from $24,000 to $125,000 for most youth committed to DJJ by a juvenile court and maintains a fee of $24,000 for youth most at risk of transfer to adult court. The bill would not prohibit counties from committing youth to DJJ, nor would it interfere with judges’ authority to place youth in the most suitable treatment setting. Rather, it aims to establish greater parity between the fee for committing a youth to DJJ and the cost of serving them in an alternative to state confinement.

“SB 284 presents California with an important opportunity to promote best practices for effective rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and minimize county reliance on the harmful DJJ institutions by creating an incentive for retaining youth closer to home.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the California State Association of Counties, “Probation departments and counties throughout California have invested millions of dollars, countless staff time, and other resources to ensure our departments reflect the values we know to guide a therapeutic and rehabilitative environment for youth. The health, welfare, and safety of the youth and our communities continue to be the guiding principles in looking at the most appropriate response based on an individual’s circumstances. To this end, California counties and probation departments have clearly demonstrated a commitment to serving youth locally whenever possible, in the least restrictive setting, as evidenced by the over 74% decline in the youth committed to DJJ, and over 60% decline in juvenile detention in its entirety. In fact, over 90% of youth served in California’s juvenile justice system are safely treated in the community.
   
   “That said the continuum of care for youth who enter our juvenile justice system is critical to have the kind of success in juvenile justice like California has seen in the past decade. While the vast majority of youth are safely served at the front-end of that continuum, in our communities, we must responsibly address all points in that continuum of care. For those youth at the other end of the continuum who qualify for DJJ placement and whose risks and needs rise to the level of requiring state investment and responsibility, the state has an important role to invest in youth who require this kind of specialized treatment. This option for youth is needed to be able to successfully rehabilitate and ultimately successfully return them to our communities.
   
   “While we certainly understand the author’s goal of incentivizing counties to reduce the number of youth that they send to DJJ, the final decision as to where youth are placed following adjudication is one held and decided by a juvenile court judge. This legislation will do little to prevent youth from being sent to DJJ and instead result in significant financial impacts on counties. This fiscal impact, especially in smaller counties, will negatively impact counties and the progress we have made to enhance services and could put programming for youth in jeopardy.”
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1812 (Comm. on Budget), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018, requires a person committed DJJ after July 1, 2018 for a qualifying offense be discharged upon the expiration of a two-year period of control, or when he or she attains 23 years of age, whichever occurs later, unless an order for further detention has been made by the committing court, as specified.
      
   2. SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget), Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012, changed the fee counties are required to pay the state incarcerate a youth in the DJJ from $125,000 per year to $24,000 per year fee for any offender committed on or after July 1, 2012.
      
   3. SB 92 (Comm. on Budget), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2011, eliminated the sliding scale reimbursement scheme and created a flat fee of $125,000 for the counties to reimburse the state for annually for each youth committed to DJJ, except those exempted by Proposition 21.
      
   4. SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, prohibited counties from committing low-risk youth to the state system. Created the Youthful Offender Block Grant Program, which awards counties a noncompetitive grant amount of more than $100 million annually for youth with higher-order needs retained at the county.
      
   5. AB 1758 (Comm. on Budget), Chapter 158, Statutes of 2003, increased the sliding scale fee that counties paid the state in two ways: First, it increased the flat fee counties paid to the state for wards in categories 1 through 4 from a monthly rate of one $150 per month per juvenile to $176 per month. Second, it required the per-capita institution cost used to calculate the sliding scale fee for wards in categories 5 through 7 to be set at $36,504 and adjusted annually to reflect increases in the California Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
      
   6. AB 1913 (Cardenas), Chapter 353, Statutes of 2000, created the Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act/Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funding stream, which provides more than $100 million annually to counties with the intent to support the expansion of juvenile justice services and alternatives to detention at the local level.
      
   7. Proposition 21, as approved by the voters on March 7, 2000, eliminated fees charged to the county for sending certain youth charged with specified gang related offenses to DJJ, and declared those costs be borne by the state.
      
   8. SB 2055 (Costa), Ch. 632, Statutes of 1998, provided that, effective January 1, 1999, the sliding scale charge to counties for CYA commitments be based on the CYA's marginal institutional cost (about $16,000) rather than the per capita institutional cost (about $33,000). Established the Statewide Juvenile Justice Program Development Fund and authorizes the Board of Corrections (BOC) to provide competitive grants from for programs and facilities in a manner allowing a county to house the maximum number of wards in county facilities.
      
   9. SB 681 (Hurtt), Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996, Instituted a sliding scale fees for youth committed to DJJ for lesser offenses (Categories 5-7) in order to create an incentive for counties to retain youth locally. Fees were assessed as a percentage of per capita institutional cost (50%, 75%, and 100% for Category 5, 6, and 7, respectively). For youth with higher-level offenses (Categories 1-4) counties paid a nominal fee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (Co-Sponsor)
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (Co-Sponsor)
Community Works (Co-Sponsor)
Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys And Men of Color
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - California
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action
CA Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Public Defenders Association
California School-Based Health Alliance
California United for a Responsible Budget 
Californians for Safety and Justice
Ceres Policy Research
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund-California
Courage Campaign
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance
East Bay Community Law Center
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Freedom 4 Youth
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Further the Work
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Initiate Justice
John Burton Advocates for Youth
Just Detention International
League of Women Voters of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
National Juvenile Justice Network 
Oakland Rising
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Project Rebound Consortium
Re:Store Justice
Root & Rebound
RYSE Center
San Francisco Public Defender's Office
Silicon Valley De-Bug
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Urban Peace Institute
Urban Peace Movement
Young Women's Freedom Center
Youth ALIVE!
Youth Law Center

Oppose

California State Association of Counties
Chief Probation Officers of California 
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
Urban Counties of California

Analysis Prepared by: Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. Maureen Washburn, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, California’s Division of Juvenile Justice Reports High Recidivism Despite Surging Costs (2017). ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 284

Author: Beall (D), et al.

Amended: 4/9/19

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 3/26/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrell

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT: Juvenile justice: county support of wards

SOURCE: Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Works

Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement

Youth Justice Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill increases the annual rate which a county pays to the state for a person the county commits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to $125,000 if the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that if a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the court may order any of the types of treatment referred to in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 727 and 730. Authorizes the court to commit the ward to DJJ, if the ward has committed an offense described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (a)(4).)
2. Prohibits the following individuals from being committed to DJJ: a ward who is under 11 years of age; a ward who is suffering from any contagious, infectious, or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health of the other inmates of any facility; and a ward who has been or is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and the most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.)
3. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ, as provided in this subdivision. Provides that this only applies to a person who is committed to the division by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2012. Requires DJJ to present to the county, not more frequently than monthly, a claim for the amount due to the state. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (a).)
4. Requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ, on or after July 1, 2018, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ. Prohibits a county from paying the annual rate of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) for a person who is 23 years of age or older. Applies to a person committed to DJJ by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2018. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (b).)

This bill requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state the following rate for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ:

1. If the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than seven years, the annual rate is $125,000.
2. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger, the annual rate is $125,000.
3. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 16 years of age or older and, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of 7 years or more, the annual rate is $24,000.

Background

Between 1961 and 1996, counties paid a flat $25 fee per month per youth committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA, now DJJ) [this analysis refers to the department now known as DJJ as CYA during the years in which it was named CYA.) By the mid-1990s, the CYA population had grown to over 9,000 wards, and the department’s facilities were significantly overcrowded. (Department of the Youth Authority, Monthly Population Report as of December 31, 1996 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/research/Highest %20Facility%20Population%201995%20-%201996.pdf ; Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Analysis of the 1995-1996 Budget Bill <

https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_

1996/a96d2.html .) In 1995, CYA’s average annual cost of housing and caring for a ward was $31,200 per offender. (Id.)

SB 681 (Hurtt, Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996) increased the fees that counties pay to the state to $150 per month per youth, and established a sliding fee scale whereby counties were charged an increasingly higher fee for sending lower level offenders to CYA. One of the primary goals of SB 681 was to create an incentive for counties to treat less serious offenders at the local level and to invest in prevention and early intervention programs. According to an LAO analysis, in 1995, 65 percent of CYA’s wards were committed for a violent offense and the remainder were committed for nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors. (Id.) SB 681 went into effect on January 1, 1997 and had an immediate effect in reducing county commitments to CYA. (LAO, Analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1998/pdfs_anl98/crim_justice_anl98.pdf .) Specifically, county juvenile court commitments to CYA dropped 25 percent between 1996 and 1997. (Id.) In its analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill, the LAO reported that several counties had informed the LAO that they had developed local alternatives to CYA, including new ranch and camp beds as well as non-residential options, in response to the increased fees. (Id.) Initially, the additional cost to counties due to the increased fees was offset by an increase in federal funding, part of which was allocated to county probation departments. (Id.) Since that time, a number of funding mechanisms have been created to assist local governments with preventing juvenile crime, supporting alternatives to detention, and retaining youth at the county level. (See AB 1913 (Cardenas, Chapter 353, Statutes of 2000); SB 81 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007); and SB 678 (Leno, Chapter 608, Statutes of 2009))

Several legislative measures have amended or proposed to amend the fee structure in the years since SB 681 was enacted. Proposition 21 was passed by the voters in March 2000. One of the initiative’s provisions narrowed the sliding fee scale by requiring the state to pay the full per capita cost for each person committed to CYA who has been convicted of specified gang-related offenses. (Pen. Code, §186.22, subd. (h).) AB 1758 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 158, Statutes of 2003) required the counties to pay the state $176 per month per person for commitments to CYA or a specified percentage of the per capita cost, redefined the per capita institutional cost, and required that the fee be adjusted annually for inflation.

SB 81 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007) created several significant changes to the juvenile justice system, including prohibiting the commitment of juveniles who committed non-violent, non-serious offenses to DJJ. Changes to the fee structure occurred a few years later. SB 92 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2011) established a flat fee of $125,000 per year per person committed to DJJ. However, the fee provision of SB 92 never went into effect. Instead, SB 1021 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012) replaced the fee in SB 92 and established the current flat fee of $24,000 per year per DJJ commitment as well as lowered DJJ’s maximum age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 years old. Notably, AB 1812 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2018) increased the maximum age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25 under certain circumstances.

Effect of This Bill

Under current law, a county may commit a person to DJJ if the person has committed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 (b) offense or a sex offense that would require registration under Penal Code section 290.008 (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731.) DJJ currently houses youth who have committed the most serious offenses.

The sponsors of this bill argue that justice-involved youth have better outcomes when treated at the local level. A recent report published by one of the bill’s sponsors highlighted the geographic disparities with respect to placement of youth in DJJ. (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Unmet Promises: Continued Violence & Neglect in California’s Division of Juvenile Justice <http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/unmet_promises_continued _violence_and_neglect_in_california_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf .) The report noted that five counties account for nearly half of the DJJ population despite only accounting for 41 percent of the state’s 10- to 17-year-old population and 37 percent of the state’s 2017 juvenile felony arrests. (Id.) Those figures were contrasted with data showing that 16 counties with a population of more than 600,000 youth and approximately 2,400 juvenile felony arrests each held five or fewer youth in DJJ facilities. (Id.)

The intent of this bill is to incentivize counties to treat juvenile offenders who have committed less serious offenses as well as young offenders in a local setting rather than committing them to DJJ. Specifically, this bill increases the annual rate from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who:

1. Committed an offense that had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years had it been filed in adult criminal court at the time of adjudication; or
2. Committed an offense when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

This bill maintains the current $24,000 annual fee in cases in which the offense occurred when the person was 16 or older and would have faced a prison sentence of 7 years or greater had the person been tried in adult criminal court, who the sponsors argue are at the greatest risk of transfer from juvenile to adult criminal court.

The provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee based on sentence length is similar to the sliding fee scale that used to exist in that both distinguish between more and less serious offenses. However, the provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee when the person being committed to DJJ committed the offense when the person was under 16 is unique when compared to previous iterations of the fee structure.

It is worth noting that although county prosecutors have discretion with respect to filing a petition to prosecute a youth, petitioning to transfer a youth from juvenile to adult criminal court in cases that are eligible for transfer, and recommending a disposition, judges ultimately maintain discretion with respect to the treatment ordered and whether a youth is committed to DJJ.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/22/19)

Anti-Recidivism Coalition (co-source)

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (co-source)

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (co-source)

Community Works (co-source)

Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement (co-source)

Youth Justice Coalition (co-source)

ACLU of California

Bend the Arc

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Californians for Safety and Justice

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Children’s Defense Fund- California

Courage Campaign

Disability Rights California

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Father and Families of San Joaquin

Freedom 4 Youth

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Further the Work

Initiate Justice

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

National Center for Youth Law

National Juvenile Justice Network

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Project Rebound at Sacramento State University

Re:Store Justice

Root & Rebound

RYSE Center

San Francisco Public Defender

Silicon Valley De-bug

Urban Peace Institute

Urban Peace Movement

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Young Women’s Freedom Center

Youth Law Center

1 individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/22/19)

California State Association of Counties

Chief Probation Officers of California

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

4/24/19 14:11:34

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: SB 284 Hearing Date: March 26, 2019

Subject: Juvenile Justice: County Support of Wards

HISTORY

Source: Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Community Works

Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement

Youth Justice Coalition

Prior Legislation: AB 1812 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2018

SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 41, Stats. 2012

SB 92 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2011

SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007

AB 1758 (Comm. on Budget), Ch, 158, Stats. 2003

Proposition 21, as approved by the voters on March 7, 2000

SB 2055 (Costa), Ch. 632, Stats. 1998

SB 681 (Hurtt), Ch. 6, Stats. 1996

Support: ACLU of California; Bend the Arc; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and Justice; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Children’s Defense Fund- California; Courage Campaign; Disability Rights California; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Father and Families of San Joaquin; Freedom 4 Youth; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Further the Work; Initiate Justice; John Burton Advocates for Youth; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; National Center for Youth Law; National Juvenile Justice Network; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Project Rebound at Sacramento State University; Re:Store Justice; Root & Rebound; RYSE Center; San Francisco Public Defender; Silicon Valley De-bug; Urban Peace Institute; Urban Peace Movement; W. Haywood Burns Institute; Young Women’s Freedom Center; Youth Law Center; 1 individual

Opposition: California State Association of Counties; Chief Probation Officers of California

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to increase the annual rate which a county pays to the state for a person the county commits to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to $125,000 if the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

Existing law provides that if a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, the court may order any of the types of treatment referred to in Welfare and Institutions Code sections 727 and 730. Authorizes the court to commit the ward to DJJ, if the ward has committed an offense described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731, subd. (a)(4).)

Existing law prohibits the following individuals from being committed to DJJ: a ward who is under 11 years of age; a ward who is suffering from any contagious, infectious, or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health of the other inmates of any facility; and a ward who has been or is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and the most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 subdivision (b) or Penal Code section 290.008 subdivision (c). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.)

Existing law requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ, as provided in this subdivision. Provides that this only applies to a person who is committed to the division by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2012. Requires DJJ to present to the county, not more frequently than monthly, a claim for the amount due to the state. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ, on or after July 1, 2018, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ. Prohibits a county from paying the annual rate of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) for a person who is 23 years of age or older. Applies to a person committed to DJJ by a juvenile court on or after July 1, 2018. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 912, subd. (b).)

This bill requires a county from which a person is committed to DJJ to pay to the state the following rate for the time the person remains in an institution under the direct supervision of DJJ, or in an institution, boarding home, foster home, or other private or public institution in which the person is placed by DJJ, and cared for and supported at the expense of DJJ:

1. If the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than seven years, the annual rate is $125,000.
2. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger, the annual rate is $125,000.
3. If the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 16 years of age or older and, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of 7 years or more, the annual rate is $24,000.

This bill specifies that the above rates apply to a person committed to DJJ by a juvenile court on or after January 1, 2020.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

The annual cost to the state to confine youth at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) averages more than $300,000 per person, yet counties contribute only $24,000 annually per youth. Best practices show local rehabilitation is more effective; however, the current low fee incentivizes counties to send individuals to DJJ, where they are isolated from family and community-based support.

Justice involved youth are more effectively rehabilitated in small, close to home facilities, allowing for a smooth transition back into their communities. Nearly every county in California has its own secure, probation-run facility for youth, yet they operate at just 30 percent of capacity, and many have abundant treatment space for high-needs individuals. Much of this space was paid for by the state with $300 million in construction financing.

In 1961, counties began paying a flat fee of $25 per month to house youth in a state facility. In 1996, California passed SB 681 (Hurtt) which established a sliding scale fee designed to keep most youth close to home. The Legislature continued to maintain an annual fee for counties with the intent to incentivize local rehabilitation.

In 2012, SB 1021 established the $24,000 flat fee. With the costs of local juvenile halls, camps, and ranches generally exceeding $24,000 per year, and increasing annually, counties have financial incentive to send youth to the state facility.

Youth sent to DJJ experience trauma of separation from family, and are often exposed to violence. DJJ’s most recent recidivism report shows that 74 percent of youth released in FY 2011-12 were rearrested within three years of release, 54 percent were reconvicted for a new offense, and 37 percent returned to a state institution (DJJ or prison).

There are extreme discrepancies in counties’ rates of sending individuals to DJJ. Taxpayers in counties that manage much or all of their high-needs youth locally still pay to support DJJ due to other counties that rely most heavily on it.

In order to reduce county reliance on DJJ and increase local juvenile justice innovation, SB 284 creates an incentive to keep youth closer to home by:

• • Increasing the cost of county confinement to DJJ from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who were:
    • Committed for an offense that occurred when under 16 years of age, or
    • Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of fewer than 7 years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.
  • Maintaining a fee of $24,000 per youth per year for cases most at risk of transfer to adult court:
    • Committed for an offense that occurred when they were 16 or 17 years old, and
    • Committed for an offense that would carry a sentence of 7 or more years in criminal court had they been tried as an adult.

1. Past Legislation Related to County Fees for DJJ Commitments

Between 1961 and 1996, counties paid a flat $25 fee per month per youth committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA, now DJJ)^[1]. By the mid-1990s, the CYA population had grown to over 9,000 wards, and the department’s facilities were significantly overcrowded. (Department of the Youth Authority, Monthly Population Report as of December 31, 1996 <https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/research/Highest%20Facility%20Population%201995%20-%201996.pdf>; Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Analysis of the 1995-1996 Budget Bill <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1996/a96d2.html>.) In 1995, CYA’s average annual cost of housing and caring for a ward was $31,200 per offender. (Id.)

SB 681 (Hurtt), Ch. 6, Stats. of 1996, increased the fees that counties pay to the state to $150 per month per youth, and established a sliding fee scale whereby counties were charged an increasingly higher fee for sending lower level offenders to CYA. One of the primary goals of SB 681 was to create an incentive for counties to treat less serious offenders at the local level and to invest in prevention and early intervention programs. According to an LAO analysis, in 1995, 65 percent of CYA’s wards were committed for a violent offense and the remainder were committed for nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors. (Id.) SB 681 went into effect on January 1, 1997 and had an immediate effect in reducing county commitments to CYA. (LAO, Analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill <https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1998/pdfs_anl98/ crim_justice_anl98.pdf>.) Specifically, county juvenile court commitments to CYA dropped 25 percent between 1996 and 1997. (Id.) In its analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill, the LAO reported that several counties had informed the LAO that they had developed local alternatives to CYA, including new ranch and camp beds as well as non-residential options, in response to the increased fees. (Id.) Initially, the additional cost to counties due to the increased fees was offset by an increase in federal funding, part of which was allocated to county probation departments. (Id.) Since that time, a number of funding mechanisms have been created to assist local governments with preventing juvenile crime, supporting alternatives to detention, and retaining youth at the county level. (See AB 1913 (Cardenas), Ch. 353, Stats. 2000; SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007; and SB 678 (Leno), Ch. 608, Stats. 2009.)

Several legislative measures have amended or proposed to amend the fee structure in the years since SB 681 was enacted. Proposition 21 was passed by the voters in March 2000. One of the initiative’s provisions narrowed the sliding fee scale by requiring the state to pay the full per capita cost for each person committed to CYA who has been convicted of specified gang-related offenses. (Pen. Code, §186.22, subd. (h).) AB 1758, enacted in 2003, required the counties to pay the state $176 per month per person for commitments to CYA or a specified percentage of the per capita cost, redefined the per capita institutional cost, and required that the fee would be adjusted annually for inflation.

SB 81 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 175, Stats. 2007, created several significant changes to the juvenile justice system, including prohibiting the commitment of juveniles who committed non-violent, non-serious offenses to DJJ. Changes to the fee structure occurred a few years later. SB 92 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2011, established a flat fee of $125,000 per year per person committed to DJJ. However, the fee provision of SB 92 never went into effect. Instead, SB 1021 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 41, Stats. 2012, replaced the fee in SB 92 and established the current flat fee of $24,000 per year per DJJ commitment as well as lowered DJJ’s maximum age of jurisdiction from 25 to 23 years old. Notably, AB 1812 (Comm. on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2018, increased the maximum age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25 under certain circumstances.

1. Effect of This Bill

Under current law, a county may commit a person to DJJ if the person has committed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 (b) offense or a sex offense that would require registration under Penal Code section 290.008 (c), and is not otherwise ineligible for commitment to DJJ under Welfare and Institutions Code section 733. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 731.) DJJ currently houses youth who have committed the most serious offenses.

The sponsors of this bill argue that justice-involved youth have better outcomes when treated at the local level. A recent report published by one of the bill’s sponsors highlighted the geographic disparities with respect to placement of youth in DJJ. (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Unmet Promises: Continued Violence & Neglect in California’s Division of Juvenile Justice <http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/unmet_promises_continued _violence_and_neglect_in_california_division_of_juvenile_justice.pdf>.) The report noted that five counties account for nearly half of the DJJ population despite only accounting for 41 percent of the state’s 10- to 17-year-old population and 37 percent of the state’s 2017 juvenile felony arrests. (Id.) Those figures were contrasted with data showing that 16 counties with a population of more than 600,000 youth and approximately 2,400 juvenile felony arrests each held five or fewer youth in DJJ facilities. (Id.)

The intent of this bill is to incentivize counties to treat juvenile offenders who have committed less serious offenses as well as young offenders in a local setting rather than committing them to DJJ. Specifically, this bill increases the annual rate from $24,000 to $125,000 for youth who:

(1) Committed an offense that had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years had it been filed in adult criminal court at the time of adjudication; or

(2) Committed an offense when the person was 15 years of age or younger.

This bill maintains the current $24,000 annual fee in cases in which the offense occurred when the person was 16 or older and would have faced a prison sentence of 7 years or greater had the person been tried in adult criminal court, who the sponsors argue are at the greatest risk of transfer from juvenile to adult criminal court.

The provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee based on sentence length is similar to the sliding fee scale that used to exist in that both distinguish between more and less serious offenses. However, the provision in this bill that mandates the higher fee when the person being committed to DJJ committed the offense when the person was under 16 is unique when compared to previous iterations of the fee structure.

It is worth noting that although county prosecutors have discretion with respect to filing charges, petitioning to transfer a youth from juvenile to adult criminal court in cases that are eligible for transfer, and recommending a sentence or disposition, judges ultimately maintain discretion with respect to the treatment ordered and whether a youth is committed to DJJ.

1. Argument in Support

The co-sponsors of the bill, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Youth Justice Coalition, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement, and Community Works write:

We support an increase in the DJJ fee…

Importantly, SB 284 is not a prohibition on committing youth to DJJ, nor does it interfere with judges’ authority to place youth in the most suitable treatment setting. Rather, it aims to establish greater parity between the fee for committing youth to DJJ and the cost of serving them in an alternative to state confinement, allowing counties to select placements that best meet the needs of their youth.

…

SB 284 aims to reduce reliance on DJJ and boost local innovation in all counties by creating an incentive to keep youth closer to home. Specifically, the bill establishes a two-tiered county fee that increases the annual cost of placing youth at DJJ from $24,000 to $125,000 for most young people committed to DJJ by a juvenile court and maintains a fee of $24,000 for youth most at risk of transfer to adult court, defined as those aged 16 or older who would have faced a prison term of seven or more years had they been tried as adults. By exempting youth at the greatest risk of transfer from the increased fee, SB 284 ensures that the DJJ fee does not negatively affect the number of adult transfer proceedings or the outcomes of those hearings.

SB 284 presents California with an opportunity to promote best practices for effective rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and minimize county reliance on the harmful DJJ institutions by creating an incentive for retaining youth closer to home.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to a joint letter submitted by the California State Association of Counties and the Chief Probation Officers of California:

Probation departments and counties throughout California have invested millions of dollars, countless staff time and other resources to ensure our departments reflect the values we know guide a therapeutic and rehabilitative environment for youth. The health, welfare, and safety of the youth and our communities continue to be the guiding principles in looking at the most appropriate response based on an individual’s circumstances. To this end, California counties and probation departments have clearly demonstrated a commitment to serving youth locally whenever possible, in the least restrictive setting, as evidenced by the over 74% decline in the youth committed to DJJ, and over 60% decline in juvenile detention in its entirety, In fact, over 90% of youth served in California’s juvenile justice system are safely treated in the community.

That said, the continuum of care for youth who enter our juvenile justice system is critical to have the kind of success in juvenile justice like California has seen in the past decade. While the vast majority of youth are safely served at the front-end of that continuum, in our communities, we must responsibly address all points in that continuum of care. For those youth at the other end of the continuum who qualify for DJJ placement and whose risks and needs rise to the level of requiring state investment and responsibility, the state has an important role to invest in youth who require this kind of specialized treatment. This option for youth is needed to be able to successfully rehabilitate and ultimately, successfully return them to our communities.

While we certainly understand the author’s goal of incentivizing counties to reduce the number of youth that they send to DJJ, the final decision as to where youth are placed following adjudication is one held and decided by a juvenile court judge. This legislation will do little to prevent youth from being sent to DJJ and instead result in significant financial impacts on counties. This fiscal impact, especially in smaller counties, will negatively impact counties and the progress we have made to enhance services and could put programming for youth in jeopardy.

-- END --

1. This analysis refers to the department now known as DJJ as CYA during the years in which it was named CYA. ↑