Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety

[Roll Call].

As the new sub Chair, I am looking forward to a robust discussion on the various proposals that will continue to advance the progress we've made on improving public safety in our state. I'm supportive of investments and programs, both old and new, that support these goals and will prioritize oversight and implementation so that the outcomes match the goals and our resources are spent judiciously. I want to acknowledge that the state has recently experienced increases in crime, but I also want to provide a little perspective. 2021 state data shows a violent crime rate of 466 for every 100,000 people in California. This is an increase from 437 from the previous year. Consider that in 2010, that number was 453.

Even more startling, that number was 848 in 1996. In 1996, after the previous decade of a prison building boom, three strikes and the death penalty. More than 25 years later, after three strikes reforms after the passage of voter approved propositions like 47 and 56 after proposed prison closures, we haven't returned to the crime levels that existed at the height of our tough on crime era. I don't bring this up lightly to make light of violent crime or increases in crime in the state.

It is a very serious issue and we still have a long way to go to reduce crime, hold people accountable and support survivors of crime. But the approaches that the state Legislature and the Administration have taken in the past decade have set us on the right path. The effective path, one that demands accountability but also offers rehabilitation and opportunity, one that considers research and evidence to guide our policies while also keeping us on a path that is focused on public safety and justice.

The district I represent embodies so much of the gains we've made in the public safety and is often ground zero for models of reform for the rest of the state. And at the same time, we also continue to deal with issues of gun violence and insufficient opportunities to support people before they get entangled in our carceral system. I'm eager to hear and help shepherd discussions and solutions that will lead to the greater community safety and greater accountability that actually improve the outcomes of people.

Now I'd like to give any of my colleagues an opportunity to make some opening remarks. There being none - today, we will be discussing budget issues from the judicial branch and also receive an update on the progress on the realignment of the division of juvenile justice. In addition, we will be discussing several proposed cuts on deferments of legislative priorities that were proposed in the Governor's Budget in January.

The panelists are listed in speaking order and we will have questions from the Subcommitee as the presentation of each item. We will not be taking any votes today, and public comment will be available after all issues have been presented and discussed at the end of the hearing. As each panelist comes forward to speak, I ask that you introduce yourselves before you start your presentation. We will begin with issue one, overview of the judicial branch priorities and update on court backlogs.

Great. Well, good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Robert O. Young and I'm the Chief Operating Officer for the judicial branch and the acting Deputy Director. With me is Ms. Rebecca Fleming, who is the Court Executive Officer from the Santa Clara Superior Court. So your agenda does a good job of providing an overview of the judicial branch and the status of court backlogs.

In General, the judicial branch is responsible for the interpretation of laws, the protection of individual rights and orderly settlements of legal disputes, and the adjudication of accusations of legal violations. The branch consists of the Supreme Court, six courts of appeal, and 58 trial courts. We have approximately 18,000 court employees and 1800 judges. The courts processed approximately 4.4 million filings last year, and our budget is approximately $5.6 billion, with the majority of the funding coming from the State General Fund.

The overall goal of the judicial branch is to provide equal access to justice. The major programs for the judicial branch include working with the courts to implement priorities from the Legislature and the Governor's office, such as the CARE Act. Climate, water and environment are areas we anticipate will become more important in the future, and we are providing training and support for judicial officers in this area.

As we emerge from the pandemic, court case processing rates have returned to pre pandemic levels, and we're focused on utilizing data to improve our court operations and our services and to continue to provide innovative solutions and equal access to justice for the people of California. Regarding court backlogs, courts continue to make progress in working through pandemic related backlogs, and as I mentioned, court case processing rates have returned to pre pandemic levels.

Courts were seeing backlogs challenges primarily in processing criminal cases because workforce shortages at the courts were exacerbated due to the dependency on judicial partners who were experiencing similar workforce challenges. In additional felonies were one of the case types where filings dipped for a short period of time early in the pandemic but quickly returned to pre pandemic levels, so courts did not have a chance to catch up like they did in other case types where filing volumes remained lower than pre pandemic.

So we appreciate the governor's proposed budget, and we're looking forward to working with you and the Senate over the next few months. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Next panelist.

Thank you for having me here. I would just make myself available for any questions on specific topics that you might have for the courts.

Anita Lee with the LAO. No comments on this item.

Mark Jimenez. Department of Finance. No comments, but available for questions.

Thank you for that information. I have a few questions and then I will turn it over to my colleague for any additional questions. First is last year we provided $100 million in ongoing General Fund to support trial court equity. Can you give us a sense of whether those resources have sufficiently addressed the equity gap? If not, what is the specific level of funding for trial courts the judicial branch deems necessary?

So we're grateful for the $100 million trial equity funding that's included in the 2022 budget. For the first time, trial court's statewide average funding is approximately 93% of the estimated workload. Approximately 10 years ago, we were funded at about 55% of need, and no court is funded under 90% of estimated workload at this time.

Thank you. Another can you give us an update on remote hearings, how they have been and what challenges they remain? And do you solicit feedback from court users on their opinion of remote hearings?

Remote proceedings actually are going very, very well. They help with the processing and the prevention of case backlogs. And in a survey of remote proceeding participants in March through October of last year, about 96% indicated that actually they had a positive experience. And this includes parties, attorneys, as well as court employees. We were actually really fortunate that prior to the pandemic, our advisory committees were looking into remote video technologies, and some of the courts actually conducted some pilots prior to the pandemic.

That experience actually helped the courts to really quickly pivot when the pandemic came and move from almost all face to face proceedings to a significant number of remote proceedings. Remote proceedings helped the public by avoiding the need to take time off to travel to a courthouse, arrange for childcare, and as well, preventing the spread of sickness. People expect remote services in their daily lives, and things like seeing your doctor have included remote video technologies now as well.

Sometimes the challenge with remote proceedings from a user perspective is difficulties with the audio. However, on the average, that only occurred for about 2% of the remote proceeding survey respondents. And we're very grateful for funding that was included in the Budget Act of 2022 of approximately $33 million to upgrade audio equipment needs in the courtrooms in the support of AB 716, which will help improve the audio quality for remote proceedings.

Thank you for that. Just also wanted to move now to judgeships for a moment. During the full budget hearing, you heard from several of our colleagues regarding the need for additional judgeships. It's my understanding that all judgeships that are authorized in statute have been filled. Would there be a need to do any new statutory authority to provide additional judgeships? And can you give us a sense of the one time and annual costs to fund an average judgeship?

So we're very grateful for the funding in the 2022 Budget Act to fund all the authorized judgeships. Our biannual judicial needs assessment was published November 2022 and shows that approximately 100 judicial officers are needed for courts that have a judicial workload need. We will be considering making a request for additional judgeships in the next budget cycle for the 2024/25 fiscal year. That process has started through our advisory committees and in terms of the cost, one judgeship is approximately $1.7 million per year, but that also includes funding for approximately nine clerical staff.

And was there one court in particular where we're noticing that there is a greater need for judge ships?

So we actually have a prioritized list in terms of the need for judgeships, and the two courts that have the biggest need are Riverside and San Bernardino.

Thank you. And finally, it seems we've made significant progress towards reducing court backlogs for the types of cases where we are not yet at pre pandemic levels. What is contributing to this lag and what more can we be done to close this gap?

As mentioned earlier, the majority of the case backlogs are in the criminal case types due to workforce shortages, again at the courts, which are exacerbated due to the dependency on our justice partners who experience similar workforce challenges. Now, these are branch averages, and so individual court backlogs will vary. We have just actually published our trial court operations metrics report on February 1, and in that report is outlined the specific backlogs for each individual court.

So again, the statistics that I had mentioned are branch wide, but in that report, individual court backlogs are outlined. We are grateful for the $90 million onetime funding that was included in the Budget Act of 2021, as well as other COVID-19 related funding to assist with the challenges. And as we move out of the pandemic period, we see continued progress in working through the backlogs. And as well, the Chief Justice has also increased access to the Temporary Assigned Judges Program for courts to help process those backlogs.

And just to clarify, those areas where we know that we're seeing more than 10% increase in dissolution, felony, misdemeanor, non traffic, misdemeanor traffic, parentage, and unlawful detainer.

Yeah. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues have any questions?

Yes, that's right.

Yeah, just one question. And it could go through another Subcommitee, but just meeting with some people that have come through my office, some counties have excess property taxes collected that would otherwise be intended for schools. And it's millions of dollars. And are you aware if any of that money is going to courts specifically as a whole or going to county courts, or do you have any information on that by chance?

I'm not familiar with that situation.

Okay. Right. Yes.

Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. So, both in state law as well as in the Budget Act, excess property tax is used to offset a portion of the General Fund that is provided to support trial court operations. If you're curious, in terms of the specific courts, we can follow up offline to let you know specifically which counties those are, but they are built into statute and the budget as well.

Okay. And it's totally discretionary. So it goes in the General Fund. It's discretionary, but the state has made a decision to send it to various courts.

It specifically offsets. So the language as written specifically offsets General Fund support for the judicial branch and the trial courts receive the greatest portion of that.

Okay. Could you get me the statutes that's in. Whenever you - not urgent or anything?

Absolutely.

All right, great. Thank you very much.

See no additional questions. We will move on now to the next panel. Thank you so much for this.

Thank you.

Great. The next issue we have is issue number two, overview of funding for trial court construction, update on trial court construction projects, and new proposals. Please, panelists, remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking.

Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. We have been asked to provide an overview of trial court construction and facility maintenance and operations to basically frame the discussion and the proposals that you're going to be hearing on this issue item. You should have a handout that we'll be using as a guide for a conversation. If you would like to follow along with our comments.

And just to note that that handout is posted on our budget website for the public. And please go ahead.

So we'll start off with some key background, and then we'll focus on kind of the three aspects of the program, construction, facility modifications, and then maintenance and operations. So if you turn to page one of your handout, we'll first start off with that key background. The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 shifted ownership and responsibility for maintenance for most trial court facilities from the counties to the state and also authorized judicial counsel to construct new courthouses.

That law also required that counties pay to the state annually the amount that they historically spent on the maintenance and operation of the facilities that have been transferred. That's roughly about $98 million annually now. Anything in excess of that, the state would cover and pay for. So the judicial branch facility program right now currently manages around 450 facilities across all 58 counties, and they engage in various activities, including managing these facilities, executing leases, as well as constructing new courthouses.

If you turn to page two of your handout, this page provides a listing of the five fund sources from which facilities are paid for. The first two are construction related accounts, the first one being the State Court Facilities Construction Fund, or SCFCF, which supports construction, facility modification, trial court operations, and other facility related expenses. It receives about $215,000,000 annually in revenue from certain criminal and civil fines and fees.

The second fund, the immediate and critical needs account, was created in 2008, but was consolidated with that Fund that I just talked about, the SCFCF, due to insolvency in both of the funds. The third pot of funding is the Court Facilities Trust Fund, or the CSTF, which was the special fund created to receive those annual county payments that I just talked about, and so that's used to support maintenance and operations. The fourth pot of funding comes from reimbursements.

These are generally coming from counties that are reimbursing the state for their share of costs in any facilities in which the state and the county share space. And last but not least on this list is the State General Fund, which has provided both one time and ongoing funding in all three areas, construction, facility modification, as well as maintenance and operations.

If you turn to page three of your handout, we're going to now focus on the first of the three aspects, and that's going to be trial court construction. Trial court construction was initially supposed to be supported by those two construction accounts that I talked about, but that changed because both funds are insolvent and the insolvency was related to two key issues. One was transfers and two is declining revenues. So specifically related to transfers.

Since 2009/10, nearly 1.7 billion has been transferred from the construction accounts to either the General Fund or to support trial court operations. Currently, about 55.5 million is transferred annually for trial court operations. They were generally started at the last fiscal downturn to reduce pressures on the General Fund or to offset reductions to the trial courts. The second reason for the insolvency is that the amount of revenue deposited into the accounts have declined, generally due to a decline in criminal fine and fee revenue.

In light of this, the program was effectively suspended in 2012/13 with projects being indefinitely delayed, canceled or put on hold. The program then resumed in 2018/19 when the decision was made that any future projects moving forward would be paid for from the General Fund. So, as part of the 2018/19 budget, funding was provided specifically for 10 construction projects totaling $1.3 billion, and that was seen as effectively offsetting the 1.4 billion that had been transferred from the funds as of that time.

Moving forward in 2021/22 the decision was made that support of these construction projects would be shifted entirely to the General Fund on an ongoing basis, and since then about a dozen projects have been initiated. Turning to page four of your handout, construction projects are generally based on ranked need. So the 2018/19 budget directed the judicial branch to reassess its need. Projects were generally categorized based on a variety of factors, including security risks, fire life safety, and potential operational efficiencies from new buildings.

If you look at the figure before you on this page, you'll see that it identified a need for 80 construction projects, 56 new buildings, and 24 renovations totaling about $13.2 billion. The projects are grouped into five priority groups, and then they're further ranked within those as well, and new construction is then just based on this priority need. The specific number of projects that are initiated annually depends on the condition of the General Fund as well as other budget priorities.

Turning to page five of your handout, we're now going to turn to that second aspect of the program, facility modifications. Facility modifications tend to be projects that are smaller than construction projects, but are changes to the building or building components that really improve its functionality. The annual budget provides a specified amount for facility modifications at Judicial Council's discretion.

If you look at the table before you, and you look at the second column from the left for 2022/23. In the dark shade, you'll see that 65 million was provided from the SCFCF, 50 million of that permanent, and 15 million of that which is temporary, and so you see that going away in the rightmost columns. The light shade is basically from the General Fund. The budget included 15.4 million ongoing from the General Fund to support these projects.

Turning to page six of your handout, separate from this annual pot of funding, the budget has also included one time General Fund for very specific projects. They tend to be larger in scale. So an example here is 64.1 million for the Orange County Central Justice Center. Like the construction projects, facility modification projects are also categorized into one of six priority groups, ranging from immediately or potentially critical, all the way to hazardous materials managed but not abated.

The projects within each of these groups are further ranked on various factors as well, such as feasibility and cost benefit. And then Judicial Council generally uses the funding to address the highest priority needs. Last but not least, if you turn to page seven of your handout, we're going to focus on facility operations and maintenance. These costs are generally supported from the CFTF, those annual county payments as well as the General Fund, and they're used to support things like preventative and routine maintenance, utilities, leases, et cetera.

As of 2022/23 about 184,000,000 was being spent on this purpose, with 99 million coming from the CFTF and about 85 million from the General Fund. Anything that is not addressed by the facility modification money or this maintenance and operation money becomes deferred maintenance. It's unmet facility need. So as of August 2022, the judicial branch identified just a little bit more than 22,000 projects totaling 4.5 billion in deferred maintenance needs.

Most of those are related to trial courts, and the state's share would be about 3.3 billion. The state has provided one time General Fund support to address these projects. So, for example, as part of the 2021/22 budget, about 188,000,000 was provided for trial court and appellate court deferred maintenance. So we'll conclude our overview comments there and turn it over to the judicial branch.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm Pella McCormick.

Can you move the mic up closer to you? Thank you, Ms. McCormick.

I'm Pella McCormick, the Director of Facility Services at Judicial Branch. The Judicial Council facilities portfolio consists of 450 court facilities with over 2100 courtrooms across the state and more than 21 million square feet. The program's goal is to prolong asset usefulness to ensure reliable, safe and functional court facilities for all Californians. Recently, two capital projects and one study have completed 22 projects and one study are ongoing. The projects will activate 259 courtrooms and vacate 41 substandard facilities.

The hearing agenda provides an excellent summary as well as the status of each active capital project. Of note, the eight projects that commenced construction just prior to or during the pandemic have experienced schedule disruption due to mandatory COVID closures, supply chain challenges, and scarcity of labor during the pandemic. These projects were affected by missing components which disrupted the sequence of construction and the ability to complete the projects timely. The Judicial Council and our contractors work diligently and collaboratively to minimize the impacts.

However, schedule overruns have occurred. As California emerges from the pandemic, schedule certainty is returning. The projects in Shasta, Imperial and Glenn will open this year, and projects are progressing with more predictability. The ongoing study for the Los Angeles Superior Court, which was authorized in fiscal year 21/22 is completing as scheduled this calendar year. The study analyzes and develops a plan for improving and modernizing Los Angeles's 43 court facilities. In 2018, Senate Bill 847 required reassessment of all Superior Court capital outlay projects.

That effort identified 80 capital outlay projects statewide, of which 17 are for Los Angeles Court. Based on the LA study's preliminary analysis, coupled with post pandemic adaptations in court operations, adjustments will be made to future Los Angeles capital project proposals. Next year's Judicial Council five year infrastructure plan may be adjusted after considering the study findings. Your continued support for Judicial Council facilities program is appreciated and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I'll start with the just a question. Can the Judicial Council or DOF respond to the LAO's analysis and recommendations? Oh. Please go ahead and provide

Thank you madam Chair. Anita Lee with the LAO. So on pages 11/12 of your agenda that does summarize our findings and recommendation, we'll just briefly summarize our recommendations for you. We do recommend that the Legislature approve the shift of the 55.5 million in support for trial court operations from the SCFCF to the General Fund, as well as approve the General Fund backfill of the SCFCF. Because this would deal with the SCFCF's insolvency on an ongoing basis.

However, we would note that the amount of backfill needed will change over time. So we do recommend that the Legislature direct Judicial Council to report on the SCFCF's long term fund condition as long as a General Fund backfill is required. And this will help the Legislature ensure that the annual budget reflects the actual amount that is needed. So, for example, it might be higher if revenues continue to decline, or it might be lower if expenditures decrease.

And so, for example, we know that debt service expenditures are expected to decline by about $40 million annually beginning in 2032/33 with more declines in 2038 and 2039 as well. So adjusting it would make General Fund resources, especially if it's lower, available for other purposes. There is also a portion of this proposal related to facility modifications. Specifically, in my comments when I was providing you with the overview, I mentioned that 15 million from the SCFCF for facility modifications was scheduled to expire at the end of 23/24. This assumes that it will be continued, it goes on, and is made permanent.

We do recommend the Legislature weigh that proposal against its other General Fund priorities because if you reduce it or you reject that amount entirely, it does provide the Legislature with a budget solution to address projected out year deficits that's currently a part of the Governor's Budget. We do acknowledge that the judicial branch has need. We talked about that in our comments, but it is a decision that we think the Legislature should weigh against its other priorities. Thank you.

Thank you. And now I will ask either the Judicial Council or DOF to respond to that.

Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. We appreciate the support for the SCFCF backfill. Certainly important to continue the solvency of the fund to support its current operations. I think with regards to the reporting requirement, we certainly look forward to working with legislative staff to discuss the details of what information will be needed in this reporting requirement, and certainly with the last comment about budget priorities. This is the Governor's Budget. This is certainly the first take, and we look forward to discussing how to further refine the elements of the budget as we work towards finalizing the budget.

The Judicial Council concurs with Department of Finance and the Governor's Budget.

Thank you. And just also to provide some context, how often are court facility assessments completed?

Approximately a 10 year planning horizon.

Great. Any other questions from Subcommitee Members?

Yeah.

Mr. Jones-Sawyer, you are recognized.

Okay, so 10 years ago, Mr. Lackey and I were probably here. I know I was Chair sub five, and you in the court had like, kept coming back saying they had $1 billion deficit from the bad years where we kept borrowing from you and borrow, we were just stealing money from you. I'll be honest with you. And I made a concerted effort to try to backfill as much as we could.

I mentioned that to someone the other day in a speech, and I realized I don't know if we ever made you whole from all those years. Is everybody new except for me and Mr. Lackey and I that remember those bad old days that could tell me, are we even close to that?

I believe with the 10 projects that were approved in 21-22 that we're getting really close.

How close is it? Like, this much or this much?

This is Zlatko Theodorovich, Director of Budget Services. Now that the funding for the program is a General Fund program, I don't think there is that an issue of making it whole. I think, as Ms. Lee commented in her presentation in 2018, when the 10 projects were approved, it effectively sort of tried to address it. But going forward, now that we have the General Fund as the source for our projects, we aren't worrying about the issue of our revenues. The SDFCF solvency takes care of that. And so I think from a funding structure, we're in a very good place.

Okay. And then I also remember there were a lot of projects that either didn't get done, couldn't get done, might get done, never going to get done. It was a nightmare, if you remember. How are we with even completing all the projects that we want to get to every off schedule, on schedule, or we just got a whole new schedule and we're trying a different way to do this now.

Well, as you're aware, in 2019, we did come back with our statewide project list for the reassessment. There were 80 projects on that list, and we have gotten through, I believe, 12 of those and are looking forward to completing more. There have also been some projects that accompanied the new judge ship. So we're in a very good place, I think, and moving pretty quickly through the list.

And when will we complete or estimated time of completion of all these projects, or I should keep my fingers crossed?

The projects that are ongoing are getting back to schedule predictability. The pandemic did kind of put a wrinkle into that. The other ones, depending when they initiate it, will take five to seven years, depending on the complexity and how complex the acquisition is for each one of those replacement projects.

I'll just add, and because the program is now funded through the General Fund, it is in part dependent on the availability of General Funds. So we appreciate the support in the budget process, but it isn't something where we have absolute control over the next phase of projects and which ones are completed.

I only got two more years, so you better speed this up. Right. Thank you.

I think, Mr. Jones-Sawyer, you'll see that it might take till 2030 for full fruition of this, but we will endure. Mr. Hart.

Well, I appreciate Mr. Jones-Sawyer's historical knowledge. I'm still trying to get my fingers around this or my head around this. So on page four of the Leg Analyst Report to us, the figure that shows the immediate need category of projects, the 18, 11 of those are under construction. Is that right? And then the next big category is the 29 critical needs for the $7.9 billion. So that is not funded in the current 10 year plan, is that correct?

That is correct.

And so, unfortunately, I guess what happens is as time goes by, things that are in the high need and the medium need move up to the critical need and the funding is just not adequate to keep up with the pace of the requirements.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I appreciate the panel. We will move on now to issue number three, which is our Care Act court implementation.

Madam Chair, I'm Zlatko Theodorovich, Director of Budget Services. I'm going to give a brief fiscal overview. I think the agenda does a really nice job, and then I'll turn it over to my colleague, Charlene Depner, to talk more in detail about the program and implementation. So the Governor's Budget proposes $29.9 million General Fund in 22-23 increasing to $72.4 million in 24-25 and up to $100 million ongoing to fund the statewide implementation of the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act.

This funding will address costs to the judicial branch to conduct additional hearings, expand self help centers, support a program Administration at the trial courts, update necessary case management systems, and provide legal representation. Again, I have Charlene Depner here to speak to the implementation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. We started the implementation in the last week of September when it was signed, and we had prepared a memorandum from a judge who's worked in this space a long time, and it had procedural recommendations, went out to all the presiding judges two days after the bill was signed. Following that, we started approaching the cohort one courts, we were calling them the end of that final week, so that's one week after it was signed.

Each of them had selected their teams already. I will say that the cohort one teams are very dedicated to this project and taking it very seriously, and they also bring a lot of experience in mental health courts, collaborative justice courts, and a variety of other areas. So we're looking at things that fit their courts from experienced judges for the most part, which helps a lot.

So our team started out in several different areas, each working on something different and working with the courts primarily, but especially with our partners in the other areas of government. So we have regular meetings with HHS, with the EHCS, and with Behavioral Health. In October, we had a convening which invited representatives from the courts, from the counties, number of different people in the steering committees, and just a variety of people who all had a hand in this project.

And the whole idea was to connect with each other and figure out where the problems were and how we could work on them together. There'll be another such convening on March 10 to see how we're doing. The courts are working really hard to put their process together, to decide where they're going to place the courts, where petitions might be filed, and a number of other business items like that. And they also are working really hard just asking questions and wanting to know more.

So we've really prioritized communication as well. We have a webpage on the Judicial Council site, and we've created a sharepoint site where each court can share within the team information about the things that they're planning. This has another piece of the site where they can share it with the other court, one court, so that we can start developing common practices.

The judges also have meetings, and we have monthly check ins with each of the courts, but they're always welcome to contact our team and ask questions immediately. The rules and forms went on a real fast track for us, and so our team worked with the Mental Health and Probate Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council and produced 11 rules of court and 11 forms to implement the act.

That package has now been through public comment, and it's on its way to the Rules Committee, where it will be reviewed on April 15, and then on May twelfth, if everything goes as planned, we will then take it to the council. There's a lot of technical assistance and training that we have planned.

We're doing some webinars for the courts right now, talking about the courts role in this whole complex of relationships, and actually it's quite amazing how these connections are starting to form and build, and we're about halfway into the time we have to open up. So I think very positive about our readiness. Also, we're planning training after the rules and forms are accepted by the judicial council. Segal will then step in and start training judges.

We're training court staff and partners in the meantime, and also trying to develop a whole series of information items that would be available to the parties. And also we're working with our self help centers to make sure they're aware of this and understand where they might fit in because they may be increased or not, but really getting good questions from them and good ideas, because one of the things that self help centers does is prove is an information resource.

So they have online and paper materials for people to read in advance. The data collection process sort of had a launch two weeks ago when we had a presentation from the Department of Healthcare Services explaining the measures that they were going to be gathering. And now they're working on the framework, deciding who's going to be producing data for each facet of that system of information. And I think we'll have our next meeting with them is next week.

We also been, of course, in touch with our own information services to ensure that we'll be able to produce the data from case management systems. And I think that's pretty much, in short, what we're doing.

Great. We'll have the LAO offer their response.

Great. Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. Your agenda summarizes our findings and recommendations on pages 15 to 17 of your agenda. We will summarize them briefly in our verbal comments. We have two recommendations for you on this item.

Our first recommendation is that while we do recognize that there will be ongoing costs, we do recommend that the Legislature only provide the 29.9 million being requested for 23-24 and this is because the CARE program has not been implemented yet and there is significant kind of fiscal uncertainty with the assumptions that are underlying the calculations that were used to calculate the funding levels.

And so to the extent that there are differences between the assumptions and actual data, that could mean that the future out year costs could be significantly different. So for 23-24, it makes sense to provide the funding based on the assumptions because you don't have any other data. But that's not necessarily the case with the out years.

And so actual data would help inform future funding levels, but it would also help the Legislature ensure that the program was being implemented as intended and that no actions needed to occur to, for example, constrain costs as well.

In light of this, we would also mention to the Legislature that given the budget pressure on the General Fund in 23-24, the Legislature might want to consider whether to limit the number of counties in cohort two that start early before July 1 of 2024, because that will require increased resources in both the budget year as well as 24-25 and that in reference, for example, is with LA announcing that they would start earlier.

Our second recommendation is that we recommend that the Legislature require each court in cohort one report monthly once they begin implementation on key metrics that are important to inform our calculation of the future funding needs. And so, at minimum, those things include the number of petitions that were filed and dismissed, the number of court proceedings that were generated, the number of people that were admitted to the program, as well as the amount of time needed by judges, court staff, and legal representatives to process these cases. All of that information would then help us determine what is the appropriate funding levels in the future years. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I did just want to have us speak a little bit more to the data collection process in light of the LAO's recommendation to provide only one year funding. I think one of the things that we learned in another hearing related to homelessness was that we were essentially really limited by our ability to have projected the kind of data that we needed to collect in order to be able to have insight into what we needed to be able to do moving forward.

So just wanted to make sure that we were with that recommendation, also considering the kinds of expenses that needed to essentially be ongoing because they were infrastructure support that we should have more visibility into. And particularly for me, data is pretty important. So could you speak to that?

Yeah, I think that we have three measures that we're supposed to, in the act, provide as the judicial branch. That's the number of petitions, the number of initial appearances, and the total number of hearings. And they're not unlike what LAO is recommending. So I think that is something that might be possible. I'm not in charge of the data collection at the Department of Healthcare Services, but I think it's similar.

We could get the same kind of data. But the measurement of time spent is an element that we haven't budgeted for, and so that would take some time in cost to set up.

Thank you. And if you all can just give a general sense of whether you believe, from judicial counsel's perspective or from Finance, whether the litigation that we have before us that's been filed is going to impact at all the budget proposal.

So the Administration is aware of the lawsuit filed against the CARE Act. However, the Administration certainly is still committed to the full implementation of the program. That's certainly why we built in the resources assuming full implementation. So we're not forecasting any impacts of the lawsuit on the CARE Act. We're full steam ahead. May I respond to one of the recommendations by the LAO, if possible? So we agree with the LAO's comments about the funding needs of the program is uncertain.

The program is still underway and this is an entirely new program. However, we respectfully disagree with the recommendation to make it a one time funding, and we urge support for ongoing resources. This program involves the commitment of many stakeholders, 58 county, county governments, the courts within each county, county behavioral health service providers, legal service providers. So it's important that we build in the necessary resources into our budget to demonstrate the state's ongoing support for the success of the program.

And as needs change, we expect to adjust and refine our budget to reflect these needs and see what's happening on the ground and just wanted to make that note. And we also appreciate the LAO's recommendation on data reporting. We're worried that maybe the monthly reporting might be onerous on the Judicial Council. However, we look forward to working with legislative staff on the reporting requirements and making sure the Legislature has the information and data that you need to think about the future ongoing resources for this program.

Yeah, I do think it stands to reason that, by all acknowledgment, there are going to be some sunk costs associated with any startup and infrastructure development that needs to be included. So it might be helpful to have just an additional reporting of what those elements of the budget are for our consideration given the counter proposal that you've just offered. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Lackey?

I just kind of want to back up the discussion that's being engaged in right now. The data collection, I believe, is very critical, and I think relying on just one annual report, I think is not our best process. I think we need ongoing data.

I don't know if it needs to be monthly, but we need something a little better than an annual report because I think the Budget Committee needs to be able to engage and adapt based on that information, because I'm very hopeful and encouraged by this concept and I think it deserves financial support. But we have to be responsible in the way that we do this.

I think we've learned in the past that our good intentions sometimes get in the way of good decision making, and we don't want to be guilty of that and especially because of the controversial nature of this approach, I think we need to be very cautious and we need to be very judicious on how we do it so we don't jeopardize the success of this program. And so I would just ask that we do something better than an annual report.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Mr. Patterson.

Yeah, thank you. Before I go on, I just want to say I concur with that. I know that sometimes annual reports, the level of approval needed, various levels of the Administration make it, you know, maybe they're annual, but the first one doesn't come for a couple of years. So a little bit on, I'm curious about the one year funding, and I kind of have mixed feelings on it.

I'm concerned about counties like Los Angeles coming and doing it on their own and whether there's the prospect of that sort of taking the money that we're budgeting for cohort one. Are we going to have to subsidize them if they start early in cohort one? I assume that would take up some of the budget funds.

You're right. What we have in the budget does not include LA's early implementation, and I think that's something that the Administration is working with the Judicial Council to estimate. Right. Because we appreciate their eagerness, but we also don't want to kind of impact the ability of the cohort one. And so I think that's something that we are working with the Judicial Council closely to kind of cost out. And as we sort out that estimate, we'll revise as needed. But we certainly don't want to hinder the ability of cohort one counties from implementing.

Yeah, I think it's great that they want to get started, but also it's kind of a small county and could take some of the funds that are available for cohort one. And that concerns me because if we are trying to collect data and see the success of it and things like that, then that county, it's a great place, also kind of has its own. It's very large. So I have mixed feelings about that.

I think another thing with the litigation, and I think it's great that we just got to move ahead no matter what might happen with that litigation. A lot of people can litigate and can't hold everything back, but in the event it is successful, that's why I'm kind of saying budgeting more on a one year basis rather than ongoing. So I kind of have mixed feelings on it right now. But we're leaving this item open. So there we go.

There we go.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

And I'm from LA County, and I'm very concerned about the County of Los Angeles's enthusiasm to be part of this basically at the last minute. And the reason I'm concerned is similar to what others have said on the other side of the aisle, because at the end of the day, no disrespect to the other counties, but if LA County fails, everyone's going to say the whole program failed because it's so large, like 20% or quarter population. I mean, it's huge.

And that size and scale, I'm looking at numbers like, what do you give them, 10 million. A lot of times we underfund things because that's just the way government does. And to underfund them, to under resource them, and not give them the support that they need to be successful, really, we're really just setting them up to fail. And again, on the big picture, if LA County doesn't get this right, I don't know why they didn't wait until cohort two to make sure they got it right.

But everyone's got to do what they think is right. My job is to make sure that it doesn't blow up in our faces and that we have continuous contact with them so that if we need to make adjustments. Again, I probably erring on the side of what my colleagues from the other side of the aisle is saying.

How can we have touch points so that we know what's going on, so that if we have to do something in an emergency situation, it's not a year and a year and a half from now, we can get to it immediately? Again, I know I may be saying, let's give LA County some special care, but we do need to make sure LA County runs well and successful. Otherwise, everyone's going to make comments about this program.

We want to make sure that the program has everything it can to succeed. Otherwise, it's going to be a problem. Look, I have skid rows now in my district, so this will impact my district probably more than anyone else. So it is a particular concern for me that these CARE courts, in whatever fashion manner that it's going to be, that they work. This is one of those times they've got to work the first time. There's no oops, okay, we tried it.

Okay, let's try again next year. Oops, we're going to try again. No, I will tell you, the public is going to vote us all out of office if we screw this up. So if there's a way we can stay on track to get some kind of measures of success and benchmarks. I think that would be very good.

We should be happy when we agree. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Appreciate the panelists for the presentation. We'll move on now to issue four, which is our legislative priorities. We've asked the LAO to provide an overview of these investments that are proposed for deferment or to be cut altogether in the Governor's Budget. So we will begin with them.

Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. So there are three items that are included as part of this issue. We'll start with lactation rooms, which is the first one. So beginning July 1 of 2024, state law required that trial courts provide any court user with access to a lactation room in any courthouse in which this type of room was provided to its employees. Prior law actually requires employers, which includes trial courts, to provide employees with access to a lactation room or location.

The 2022-23 budget included $15 million in one-time General Fund support to implement this policy. In an August 2022 letter to the Governor, the judicial branch indicated that this amount of funding was only sufficient to implement the policy at about 30% of its courthouses and that an additional $67 million would be needed to implement at the remaining 70%. The Administration is proposing trailer bill Language to delay implementation for four years, from July of 2024 to July of 2028.

The second item in this issue is court appointed special advocates or the CASA programs. CASA programs are nonprofit organizations that provide trained volunteers appointed by a juvenile court judge to establish an ongoing relationship with children in foster care in order to support and advocate for them. CASA programs received funding from various Fund sources, including about 5.7 million from federal funds, 2.7 million from the state General Fund, as well as private philanthropic dollars from private donors, foundations, and corporations.

The 2022-23 budget included $20 million annually for three years for the statewide CASA program to engage in volunteer recruitment and other activities, as well as to expand local program capacity, training, recruitment and data collection efforts as well. The Administration proposes to eliminate two out of the three years of funding, which totals $40 million. The third item on this issue is the public defense pilot.

The 2021-22 budget included $50 million annually for three years to support indigent defense provider workload related to four pieces of statute generally related to resentencing and other proceedings. The pilot was scheduled to end in January of 2025, and BSCC was directed to contract with a university or a research institution to complete an independent evaluation of the impact of the provided funding. The Administration proposes to eliminate the final year of funding, $50 million as part of the budget. Thank you.

Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. To adjust this year's revenue shortfalls, difficult cuts were made across all state agencies, and as Ms. Lee pointed out, this included cuts to the Judicial Council's court appointed special advocate program and trailer bill Language to extend to delay the implementation or to add an additional four years to the AB 1576 lactation room requirement. For the CASA program, the 22 Budget Act included a total of 60,000,001 time over three years.

The budget proposes to maintain the 20 million in the current year and proposes to cut the 20 million General Fund next year and the year after the proposed reductions were selected because these amounts have not yet been appropriated as they are budgeted for future fiscal years, and the Judicial Council still has 20 million allocated in the current year, which is available to be spent down over two years until June 30, 2024.

As for the AB 1576 lactation rooms, the Governor's Budget proposes statutory changes to delay the implementation to 2024 to make lactation rooms available for all court users. Implementation of this requirement by next year will require up to an additional 74,000,000 one-time General Fund. Due to the limited General Fund resources, the Administration is proposing to delay this by July 1, 2028.

And we just note that, as Ms. Lee pointed out, there's already 15 million in the current year, one-time General Fund to start building out these lactation rooms in some court facilities.

Hi, Cynthia Mendonza, Department of Finance. As Mr. Jimenez said, these weren't easy decisions. And the Governor's Budget proposed to reduce the third year of funding for the pilot program, retaining 100 million in 21-22 and 22-23 and eliminating the 50 million in 23-24 and retaining the ability to evaluate the program after 100 million of funding.

You're speaking to which one?

Public Defender Pilot Program.

Thank you. I think one thing to just note is that every year when the budget is negotiated with the Senate and the Administration, agreements are reached not only on individual priorities, but the overall budget structure. And in the last few years, we've certainly made significant investments to advance justice for particularly vulnerable Californians, people who are indigenous, children, and in foster care.

And also we've recognized the particular need of nursing mothers and our ability to comply actually with the law in this instance, who spend long hours working in government buildings like courthouses.

And while I understand that our budget outlook requires us to prepare for an economic downturn, I'd like to ask the Department of Finance how these particular programs were targeted amongst others. What they have in common is that they are ultimately related to the people who are most vulnerable and in need, sitting in a courthouse asking to make sure that they have the opportunity to have justice in their respective capacities.

Whether it's a mother waiting for 8 hours in a courthouse dealing with a traffic ticket to something more significant, whether it's a child or youth in foster care who is struggling to make sure that they have the coverage that they need from a court appointed special advocate, or whether it's to make sure that people who can't afford the attorneys have to rely on our public defenders.

So it seems unfortunate to me that we are building up or recognizing savings on the backs of people who most need us. With that, would just love for you to be able to comment on the allocation, the prioritization, and why when funding hasn't been allocated, the tendency is to remove that funding altogether that's targeted.

And I wanted to just make sure that you have an opportunity to speak to that, because there are certainly many programs that we have where we just haven't been able to allocate that funding right now. Also, the Governor's Budget includes a lot of new spending proposals, and we should honor the commitments that we've already made. Our budget is our values. So any comments on that?

We appreciate that. And I think part of these decisions were not necessarily based on the merits of the program. The Administration supports in signing AB 1576. The Administration supports the build out of lactation rooms, and we're not necessarily proposing to eliminate that requirement, but just to give the state a bit more time to consider the General Fund outlook. Just because we delay it by an additional four years doesn't necessarily mean we're going to wait four years to fund it.

I think there's still some flexibility considering if there is some General Fund available in the years in between to consider resources. But given the limited General Fund resources we have now, it would be difficult to build in resources as it would also necessitate cutting resources elsewhere. I think part of the proposals that we built into the budget, we really thought about really baseline workload resources, things that support kind of current operations.

Certainly one of the things that we prioritized, and with the CASA in particular, we're not necessarily eliminating the program in general. We're just, we're maintaining the resources in the current year and reducing the resources that were budgeted in the out years. And so we're not necessarily eliminating the negotiated resources, but we're just reducing in response to the current General Fund conditions we're currently facing.

I think I would just say that maintaining the resources as they have been feels to me like we are essentially baking in inequity into our budget. The legislative priorities that were put forward were put forward because there was a recognized need, a situation where we have either individuals who have not been on the right side of making sure that they've had the resources that they've provided. And so essentially, we've established a wrong baseline. And I'm not quite sure that I agree with the sensibility that we should just keep that baseline as is, because it's what we've done in the past. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. First of all, let me just say that I'm kind of disappointed in some of these considerations. I do believe, as far as lactation goes, that we'll be exposing ourselves to a significant amount of liability. I worry about that. But the most egregious to me is the cost of consideration and cutting those services. I connect very closely to the foster care system. And this is why. We've had three incredible tragedies in the last eight years. Well, I guess it's over 10 years now.

And where we needed these advocates to remove children because they lost their lives and they were all 10 and younger. That is an affront against not only justice, but any kind of heart that this government is supposed to protect. I mean, what is more valuable than a child at risk? But yet we're going to cut here? One of these children is being adjudicated. Well, his case is being held in trial as we speak, and he was brutally tortured.

And now we're going to eliminate the ability for these people to have advocates? I find that to be not only objectionable, but offensive. And so someone needs to speak out for these young people because they can't. And I will tell you that this is very hurtful, very, very hurtful to me, and I just hope that we'll reconsider the damage that this is going to do, because we clearly have problems in our system, and DCFS is highly overburdened. And for us to take and cut out these special advocates, it's a disaster. And I just hope that we'll reconsider that, because I'm very, very hurt by this proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Mr. Patterson?

Yes. Thank you. I did not come here today expecting to defend lactation rooms. I have four children, and my wife's employer did have lactation rooms. And a lot has changed in the law over the last few years on lactation rooms, and employers have to accommodate. And I think it's kind of silly when the state creates these laws.

I mean, we could start listing them off, and I'd probably term out before we finish, but we create these laws on private businesses and local governments, and then we want to exempt ourselves from it. And so I think we got to decide, do we want lactation rooms or not? If we don't want to fund them for our own employees and people that use our public buildings, then other people shouldn't have them. But I don't think that's the will of the Legislature.

I think we want to have them and that decision has already been made. And Department of Industrial Relations has an entire website dedicated to this and what the violations could be. And I don't even know what that means if the state isn't doing it, but all the employers have to do it. But I want to say, I know that you have a tough job coming in, and I don't want to say advocating for, but justifying eliminating funding to CASA programs.

I think that that's one of the core services that government provides, is helping foster youth and people who are in the custody of the state in a lot of cases. And the homelessness rates of children in foster care are very high. And I think the $40 million savings might be nice now, but it's going to cost a lot more money when those kids end up in the criminal justice system if they're not receiving the help that they need. Out of probably everything I've looked at today, that's the one thing that, you know, I really am concerned about, and I hope we can restore that funding.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

And I want to actually thank you. You've probably done something that we've been trying to do since I've been here. You figured out a way to unite Republicans and Democrats in ways I've never seen before, to the point where I'm not going to echo what the esteemed Chair has said and what my Republican colleagues have said, because they're absolutely right. We need to rethink that. And I'll say we, because we're all part of this system.

So I'm not dumping on you, but we do need to rethink that, even just for women's rights. I don't know who came up with that idea. Hopefully it wasn't all males. But we really do need to think through that, because as a father of three, it was very important for my children to have good, healthy substance. So take it back. Explain, if they're not listening to this, explain that I think Republicans and Democrats are united on this issue.

And it may not be something you want to continue to move forward, but to have a discussion with us about ways we can make sure that foster kids are taken care of and that we provide women with all the needs that they can have so they can be in court or even just working in the court, that we're doing everything possible to help them.

Thank you. Appreciate your focus on this, and we'll move on to the next panel at this point. Our next issue, number five, is the division of juvenile justice realignments.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the Members of the Committee. I'm Dr. Heather Bowlds, the Director of DJJ. I'm here to provide an update on the progression of the DJJ Realignment and the closure of the DJJ facilities. As noted in the agenda, CDCR submitted a budget change proposal to reflect the closure of DJJ facilities effective June 30th, 2023. Beginning in 2024 through 25, the closure of DJJ facilities will result in an ongoing annual savings of 98.9 million and 631.4 positions.

The request includes the retention of various positions to complete temporary wrap down activities, maintain DJJ facilities in warm shutdown, and manage ongoing DJJ specific activities and workload as well as continued operations of the Pine Grove Youth Conservative Camp for local justice-involved youth. There are a little more than four months left until the DJJ closure. These past two and a half years have been difficult for both youth and staff for multiple reasons.

I mentioned last year that we have had to ask for patience and flexibility and that continues to hold true. The youth have been rightly anxious about what their lives will be like for them when they return to the counties and our staff have been rightly anxious about what their future looks like after closure. Regardless, our division is still responsible for the youth in our care and our job is to safely guide and support them as they engage in treatment.

Anxiety leads to challenges, and we have had to constantly problem-solve the best way to support our youth and our staff to maintain that mission, even when so many things had yet to be decided and to work through. We continue to take things step by step, working through items, often in a manner that requires out-of-the-box thinking and unique solutions. Each step has helped to provide answers and decrease anxiety. Still, there are uncertainties that are just inherent in such large-scale change.

That is when we lead into providing avenues of support for both youth and staff. As we transition youth back to the counties, I have maintained that the transfer of care requires an individual approach, a one-size-fits-one. As we know, each youth is unique and each county is unique. DJJ's role is to ensure that the counties and court partners have the necessary and most up-to-date information on each youth to inform the local conversations and court hearings that will determine the youth's local placement.

The inclusion of probation and case planning for each youth was and continues to be a key component of the transition of care so that staff are aware of the youth strengths, their needs, services the youth have received, additional treatment needs being recommended, and their educational attainments. It allows for collaboration and further conversations, creating the best plan to move forward in local care and successfully integrating the youth into the new treatment setting. Currently, there are 351 youth remaining under DJJ's authority.

Of those, 205 of those youth will not be able to discharge prior to the closure of DJJ. Youth who have a possible discharge date before June 30th will still be afforded an opportunity to have a board hearing prior to closure. Several counties have already begun holding hearings to transition their youth back, which will reflect a steadier decline in our population than previously seen over the next several months.

Based on the current number of hearings the courts have scheduled and estimating the number of youth that might be denied discharge between now and June, we are estimating that we could have around 170 youth by our final month. The remaining youth will transition throughout that month, but no later than June 30th.

The tremendous gains that DJJ has made over the years to offer interventions and specialized programming to youth has truly been remarkable, and this policy redirection in no way reflects on the good work being done by DJJ staff. DJJ remains dedicated to its mission of providing services to youth with the goal of transitioning to a productive future in the community and will do so until our very last day. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Orlando Sanchez with the Legislative Analyst Office. Our findings and recommendations can be found on pages 22 through 24 of the agenda. I plan to walk through each of these recommendations as it relates to the different aspects of the proposal. First, I'd like to speak on the proposed reductions. We have no concerns with the reductions to DJJ, and we recommend that the Legislature approve them.

If the Administration proposes further reductions or adjustments in the future, we will advise the Legislature at that time. The proposal includes funding to keep within DJJ's budget approximately 111 temporary positions, and then the next set of recommendations that I will go over will cover some of these temporary resources requested within the closure. So, for example, a part of those 111 temporary positions, the proposal includes two lieutenant correctional officers for about two months to complete closure and process contraband and take inventory of correctional officer equipment.

This is just one example of some of the requested positions necessary to complete closure. We recommend that the Legislature withhold action on approving these 111 temporary staff requested to complete the closure and direct the Department to report on the need for these staff in the spring. Given that the proposal was prepared in the fall, the Department will have better information at the May Revision as to how much of the workload is to remain.

It is possible that the workload associated with some of these positions could be completed ahead of the closure, and not all positions may be necessary. The proposal also includes funding within DJJ's budget for 13 temporary positions between six months and a year after the closure to transition youth. These positions include mental health, parole, and education staff. We recommend that the Legislature reject these 13 temporary positions to help transition county jurisdictions.

At the time of the analysis, the Department indicated that these positions could help address concerns from counties, but the counties had not requested these specific resources. Since then, we've become aware of CPOC's letter to the Administration indicating support. However, we still find that these positions to be unnecessary because youth will have a transition plan that informs the counties of their specific needs. In addition to these temporary staff I just spoke of, the proposal increases CDCR's non-DJJ budget permanently for workload to remain after the closure.

The next set of recommendations cover these temporary or these permanent positions. As discussed, the proposal includes permanent funding to transition DJJ facilities to warm shutdown. We recommend approving those 15 positions for warm shutdown. The proposal also includes permanent funding to process Workers' Compensation claims. These are benefits entitled to employees for work-related injuries and illnesses and funding for administrative workload to remain after the closure. We recommend that the Legislature approve these resources on a two-year, limited term basis rather than a permanent basis.

We find that the positions and funding for the workload associated with the closure appear necessary in the budget year. However, some of the proposed resources are likely unnecessary in the future. One example of this is that as Workers' Compensation claims close and no new claims are filed because of the closure, it's possible that the workload will decline because of such process. We also know that the Department can request to retain these resources if they continue to be needed in the future.

Then, moving on to this last set of recommendations within this section, the Governor's proposal also requests permanent resources to use existing DJJ facilities to service the vehicle fleet of the California Health Care Facility, a prison in close proximity to DJJ because the Department--and we recommend approving the position authority.

However, we recommend rejecting the funding for these positions given that the Department should have sufficient resources within its existing budget, and part of that reason is that the Department currently services these vehicles through an off-site and they would continue to have this funding available. And then our last set of recommendations are in regards to the Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp. Under the current contracts and the Governor's proposal, the state would be responsible for over 90 percent of the cost of the camp.

We recommend the Legislature require the Department to charge counties a fee that minimizes state costs for Pine Grove. We find that the Governor's proposal, which would require the state to cover most costs of Pine Grove is inconsistent with the underlying goal of realignment to make juvenile justice a county responsibility. In addition, the contracts would result in the state effectively double paying counties, given that the state already provides funding to counties through realignment grants.

One example of a fee structure that could minimize state cost is an annual fee of about 70,000 dollars per youth. This would roughly cover all of the costs of Pine Grove, assuming the camp operates at full capacity. Lastly, we recommend the Legislature continue to monitor the need for Pine Grove. For example, if it becomes unviable to operate Pine Grove because few counties are willing to place youth at the camps, the Legislature could reconsider the cost-effectiveness of maintaining it.

However, to the extent it remains a legislative priority, the Legislature could consider taking steps to encourage counties to place youth at the camp, and some of those could be reducing the county share of the cost if the cost is the primary factor preventing counties. Thank you, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Thank you, and I'll give an opportunity for the Department of Finance to respond.

Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance. Just want to speak to a few of the issues that the LAO has raised. First on the temporary staffing, while it is 111 positions, those positions are largely requested for between one and three months. Just to be clear, youth will be at DJJ until June 30th, and in many cases, they won't be able to begin closure activities until the last youth is out of their building.

So while there may be some refinements, we don't anticipate that that request would change because we're closing down both three facilities and a state program that has operated for quite some time, and resources are needed to do that. Just to clarify, if you were to annualize the 111 positions, it's about 26.1 permanent positions or personnel years, so a fairly reasonable request. It is true it is an estimate of what might be needed to complete these ramp down activities.

To the extent these positions weren't needed for the specific time horizons, it's possible those positions could be brought down sooner, which would result in additional savings. On the county transition team, the impetus or the inspiration for that piece of the proposal is specifically because counties are requesting that support, and as my colleague noted, CPOC issued a letter of support because counties generally feel that additional support is needed.

A transition plan might be helpful, but what is requested is the specific positions that are serving these youth now and providing programming now and continuing that for a period of time after closure, and that's kind of a clinical best practice to continue--to help counties provide services to those youth given the challenges that may be anticipated with those youth transitioning back to their counties of residence. The other point I wish to raise is on the Pine Grove Conservation Camp and the recommendations therein.

So it is true that the state would fund the majority of the program costs to maintain Pine Grove. The fee structure is actually based on an existing fee structure that the state charges to counties for adult to jail inmates. So it's not a new or novel fee structure. It's an existing fee structure that we thought made sense to have consistency with. In addition, our proposal is consistent with the legislative intent language that was included in SB 823.

There's a benefit of--workforce training benefit--to maintaining Pine Grove, and so our proposal reflects--is consistent with that legislative intent. On a technical note, the realignment funding that is available is not specific to any particular youth other than providing services to youth generally. So in that case, the Administration's proposal is generally consistent with the legislative intent and continuing Pine Grove, and we do want to incentivize counties to send youth there in order to maintain the camp over the long-term.

But again, it's consistent with an existing fee structure we have, and so we maintained parity with that for the adult side. And that concludes my comments. Available for any questions as well.

Thank you. Dr. Bowlds, question for you: I'm struck by the 170 youth who will be there during the final month of closure and wanted to just give you an opportunity to speak more broadly to the kind of transition plan that will be included for the youth that are moving out and whether there are any measures to try to create the least disruptive transition process for those youth.

Certainly. What I will say is this has been a lot of work and a lot of partnership over a lot of months in discussing this, and want to step back and first, again, recognize, I think, one of the challenges and one of the important things we had to recognize were working with the counties in understanding that each of their situations were unique in terms of the number of youth that were returning, the type of programs that were available, how that impacted the court partners, and so on our end, we really wanted to make sure that we were working with the counties on what makes the most sense for their transition back with the youth that they have, given all of their needs.

And so what we started doing is obviously in July and then again an update in October making sure to go over with all of the counties, the lists of their youth that were with us, some of their needs, that they had started having more in-depth conversations with the counties about those youth. We created a transition report in partnership with CPOC, Judicial Council, OYCR.

The Pacific Public Defenders had DAs look at it as well to look at making sure that we could then on top of those discussions, make sure they had all of the information that the youth is where they're at, what they've accomplished for those discussions. On top of that, we've been doing releases of information with our clinical team, connecting with the receiving clinical team to have further in-depth conversations about that youth's transition and care.

I think all of those conversations go to your question of what can we do to ease that transition. It's really focusing on what does each youth need and where is each county at in making sure that we can hand off that youth in a safe and smooth manner. So to that, that's why in working with our court partners, we have some counties that have a very small number of youth but need more time to gather resources.

So it makes sense that those youth--and from a judicial perspective, it's not as difficult to transfer all of those youth closer to our closure date. For our counties that have larger numbers, it's a different conversation. It's around not only the services that are there, but how do we have a progressive transition of those youth and recognizing stepping those youth on a slower number of basis makes more sense than all at once.

So even though I agree, I know 170 seems--there's still a lot of youth, we're also working with various counties and we're prepared on our end. We've been preparing our end to be able to continue working with our youth until that last possible day, but I will say that that is also partly why this BCP and the post-closure plan is so important because I want my staff focused on the care of the youth, and then we can do the closing pieces.

Thank you, and can you just speak to the LAO's finding that there would essentially be kind of double paying associated with Pine Grove?

Alilson Hewitt from Department of Finance. I'll address that question. I think what they're indicating is that by providing the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant funded through SB 823 as well as other realignment funding streams, and then the state then also funding the Pine Grove facility, that that's essentially double funding, I guess to the extent it is likely true that a county could potentially redirect some realignment funding to fund Pine Grove.

I guess we don't see it as double-dipping as much as continuing to operate Wildland Firefighting Training Program for youth and honoring a fee structure that exists on the adult side, I guess, technically speaking, and then allowing counties to utilize their realignment funding for other services at the local level. This is a fairly small group of youth, 80 to 100 youth per year. The specific language of SB 823 indicated a state and local partnership, and so this is our proposal of what that partnership could look like, understanding we may have additional discussions on this and many things with the Legislature in the months to come.

Yeah, I would hope that that happens, given that there is definitely a difference of opinion on that. Perhaps coming back to the Committee or in some form to be able to clarify the variance and what we have being told to us on that would be helpful. I did also just want to move a little bit to the actual facilities themselves. Are there any plans or discussions about what will happen to the DJJ facilities once they're closed?

Right now the plan is to put them into warm shutdown and then from there, you know it will be up to further conversations. But at this point, just warm shutdown.

Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. First of all, let me just comment and say that I'm saddened to see and to watch this DJJ shutdown. I think it's somewhat unfortunate. I know it's a foregone thing and we're moving forward because I do think that DJJ had some positive gains with a very, very vulnerable part of our population. And they have a very complex challenge ahead in this transition, and I'm hopeful for a positive transition--I really am--because everybody has everything to gain.

But when we talk about these--I think the number was 170 people--we got to remember that each one of these are very unique. And quite honestly, these are hugely vulnerable young people that if we don't invest in them properly and we don't give them the support they actually need, they are likely to become very serious problems for our society. And I guess my question would be to the Department of Finance. Is there any additional support that we've given to the counties for these 170 people that are returning? Are we just saying good luck?

Thank you for the question. I think the first is that we've been leading up to the implementation of full juvenile realignment from a funding perspective, so we established the construct for the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant. Again, not tied to these 170 specific youth, but generally to provide counties with resources to address the realigned population. Technically speaking, the counties are already serving a portion of the realigned population given that DJJ stopped intake or ceased intake on July 1st of 2021 with very limited exception.

Over time, we've kind of tried to build in different mechanisms. So SB 823 included 9.6 million for specifically around facilities and youth programming, which included, among other things, potential regional hubs that counties could make use of. Last budget included 100 million dollars for juvenile facilities to try to help counties modify their facilities to make them kind of more rehabilitative, among many other things. And so I think the Administration has kind of support of counties top of mind and has provided and allocated funding streams.

There's also a large body of other realignment funding streams. So for these 170 youth, there's no funding tied specifically to them, but what we would expect is that counties leverage the existing funding mechanisms that have been made available to support them, although the county transition team in our proposal is another facet that we think is critical to supporting counties in providing services to a subset of the 170 youth with severe mental health and behavioral health needs.

So the short answer, unfortunately, is no.

There is no additional--the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant is almost 200 million dollars this year. To counties, again, for serving the realigned population, it's again, not specific youth, but generally there's no additional funding on top of that proposed at this point, feeling that the Administration and the state and the Legislature have invested quite heavily in this area, but no additional funding at this point for that specific subset of youth outside of the county transition team and other things within our closure PCP.

Have there been requests from any of the counties for additional funding? Do we know?

What we are tracking is that counties are very concerned about taking youth back.

I could see why. Pretty serious undertaking.

Sure. So I think we're aware of those concerns. Some of those concerns are funding-related, some of them are practical, as Dr. Bowlds has spoken to.

Yeah. Okay. So I think you indirectly answered my question. The requests have been there, but they're not being honored for additional funding. Yes or no?

I think at this point, the Administration feels like it is lending quite a bit of support to counties and trying to help them prepare for this. The realignment was a joint decision with the Legislature a number of years ago, and I think the funding mechanisms that were put in place were kind of a joint approach at how to best address this.

Okay.

I do believe that there was 100 million dollars last year provided to probation for facilities for counties.

Right, in addition to the other realignment funding streams, of which there are numerous, and then the Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant, which in 23-24 is funded at 192 million.

I have no further--

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you very much. At DJJ, are the ages--they're not all 18 and under, right? They can go up to 25, or is it--is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. All right. And I know that, I think in my district, just looking at these numbers, I think there was one or two between the entire district, and obviously, I don't know the age breakdown or things like that, but I know that the DJJ had some programs, rehabilitation programs and things like that that I would assume would be difficult to replicate for one or two people on the county level. So I don't know. I guess I don't have anything substantive to say on the funding.

I mean, I'm sort of relitigating the decision in the first place to realign, but I think with these youth going up to 25, I am concerned about the programming that would be available on the local level, pretty much anywhere in the state on these. So I'll definitely be interested to know what kind of--more information on the reentry funding and our counties. Is any of that allocated to these youth? Is that just totally up to the counties? Things like that.

So again, we only have one or two. So I can't imagine that some of these smaller counties are going to create entire programs for a small subset. But then again, my colleague on the left here has bigger population in his district, and I'm sure he'd be interested to know if there's specific funding to create programs to get them out of the justice system eventually.

I just want to make sure that we are reorienting ourselves. So it is the case that over 90 percent of DJJ-eligible people were already being kept by the counties, and they already have programs that they've providing.

Generally, that's true. Counties have been providing care and supervision for the majority of the youth population based on juvenile realignments that have occurred over time.

Who's left of the 170 or--sorry, 351? Can't keep my numbers right. 170, 351. Why are those individuals left versus the ones that have been sent back?

I think it's a couple--one: we have some youth that have been with us for quite some time and have the option to go in front of the Juvenile Parole Board and discharge. So upon discharge from DJJ, it's our board saying they're ready to go out into the community.

And so in terms of the structure for how the youth are starting to transition back, it really has been county by county and looking at what their needs are as a county in terms of structuring the timeframe for the court processes that will need to take place, as well as the youth's individual needs.

So a lot of counties recognize that if a youth has the option to discharge from us, it makes a lot of sense to allow that opportunity for that youth to occur if we have some youth that may be finishing up a diploma for high school, and so some counties are wanting to make sure that that continues.

With our specialized populations, there's some treatment completion that youth are very close to, and so the counties recognize that allowing that youth to do the completion of treatment would be beneficial. So those are some of the conversations in looking at how youth are starting to go back to the counties from this point on.

Okay.

Thank you. Did you--oh, I'm sorry.

No, that's fine. Yeah, if you don't mind. The remaining population, though, seems to be different than the population that has already gone back. I mean, maybe they're completing a diploma or they're completing some kind of program or maybe they have offenses that are--the county is not ready to take them back.

Well, for the youth that are transitioning, I think there's a couple. So we did end our intake in July of 21. So counties have been already taking on youth that would have previously come to DJJ. The population that came to DJJ was narrowed in terms of needing to be what we call a 707b offense, which is a serious offense, and then it was also sometimes unique to our specialized populations. So since July, really, the counties have been having those youth stay there.

I would like to say that that doesn't mean that some of the youth who never came to DJJ didn't have those similar offenses. But for whatever reason, at the local level and looking at the programs available and the court processes there, it doesn't necessarily mean that all youth with the offenses that are DJJ always came to DJJ. So the population that we have are the youth that were sent to us prior to the end of our intake closing down.

And then in terms of who's been transitioning back, that's really where that individual component comes into place. So the offenses, not necessarily specific to being any different from the offenses, but really more, what does that youth need to successfully transition back to the county and continue their care? I hope that helped.

It does.

Thank you.

Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

Thank you.

So I just want to know, the ones that have gone back, are the bulk of them going back to LA County probation? Because this is one of the largest probation. The bulk of them going back to LA County?

The largest number is going back to LA. That is correct.

Okay. Are you aware that as recently as last week, the Board of Supervisors have asked for the resignation of the Chief Probation Officer, that the Commission has recommended firing them? And there's the latest video of a beating of one of the juveniles in the custody. There's also been revelations of rapes by probation officers on some of the female inmates there that date all the way back to 1985.

Are you aware that there's a practice of when these young kids want to go to the bathroom at night, they're not allowed to go to the bathroom. In LA County, are you aware that probation officers are selling guns? And it just goes on and on and on, and I think we've pushed all of this down from DJJ down to the counties, and I'm not sure they were really ready for that influx.

And before we abdicated our responsibility and pushed them all down, did we make provisions not only to continue our oversight, to make sure these kids are safe--you understand, safe--so they do have an opportunity to be able to rehabilitate? The things I'm mentioning are the things that we found, the things that we know about. The probation officers that I've talked to want to see a change, want to do the right things. It's like in every profession, there's always some individual bad apples.

But right now, there might be a void in leadership there, and we're still talking about bringing, pushing and pushing it to the local levels. And I just want to make sure not only are they prepared for the incoming individuals who are coming in, but they too have the resources to be able to handle it. Otherwise, we've just taken the deck chairs from the titanic and just push it to the other side of the ship and still failing. And we're failing young people.

And so I don't know if that's been taken into consideration as we made this adjustment to moving young people down to the local county level because I don't think--the responsibility doesn't end just because we change location. It's still our responsibility, and we still have to stay on top of it, and we still owe those young people safety at all costs, but most important, to figure out a way to get them rehabilitated and back into a productive life in society. And so I don't know.

I'm hearing about movement, I hear about money, additional money to move people, but I'm not hearing anything compassionate about what are we going to do to make sure we're not sending them from a place that may not have been the best in the world, that we're sending them to a place that's a hell on earth. So we really do need to think this through. Again, I believe there are people in probation, I want to do the right thing, but we need to make sure they have all the tools, resources, and opportunities to be able to do that. I guess there's no comment.

Thank you, Mr. Jones-Sawyer, and I think there's also been a recent report provided by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice on the current conditions in DJJ. So while this is a very challenging moment, we do know that there have been high incidence of drug overdoses, high rates of suicide attempts, routine use of chemical spray on youth, a lot of isolation, and limited programming for youth. And so back to the point about relitigating this particular closure, I think you're raising certain issues that we need to be cognizant of as we're reorienting the placement of youth into at the county level, and so I think that will be part of the work that we can do here in this Committee.

So thank you. Thank you for that testimony. With that, I want to thank all of the panelists that appear today for our hearing. We will continue to conduct our review of these proposals and look forward to some of the follow-up information we are seeking. Now we will turn to public comment. We will start with any public comment here in the room. Each person will have up to one minute for public comment.

Once we have gone through all of the in-person testimony, we will turn to the phones. The phone number to connect is on the Committee website and should be also on the screen if you are streaming this hearing. The number for public comment through toll free number is 877-692-8957 with public access code 1315437. With that, proceed.

Natasha Minsker, on behalf of Smart Justice California. We have two priorities. One is to maintain the funding for the Public Defender Grant Program. Two is to provide clear funding for implementation of the Racial Justice Act that includes funding for defense council for post-conviction work. As the Chair said, we have inequities built into our budget.

Traditionally, when a criminal justice law is passed, we have provided funding for the Department of Justice for the additional work that that entails, but we have not provided funding for the defense side for the post-conviction work. Both of these items will address that inequity, and we encourage you to ensure that we provide quality funding for the defense to rectify inequities, injustices, and vigorously implement the California Racial Justice Act. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California. Just wanted to speak briefly to the DJJ realignment and the transition of the remaining youth at the DJJ state facilities. Probation chiefs want to continue to partner with the state to make sure this final transition is done right.

The transition of these youth will approximately double the population of local, secure youth treatment facilities once completed, and this is a new population that counties were not resourced for and didn't design systems for as part of the original DJJ realignment legislation. We think a change to the local population of this magnitude must be done thoughtfully to increase chances of success with both the transitioning population and the existing local population.

Probation chiefs have identified system gaps and we hope to partner with the state on a focused effort to fill those gaps in short order as part of this transition. We have shared a letter with the Budget Committee identifying our concerns and system needs and look forward to further discussing. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. This is Elizabeth Espinosa. On behalf of a couple different clients, I will make a few comments and keep it very brief. I want to align myself with the comments made by my colleague regarding DJJ realignment on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, representing 14 of the most populous counties, the young people who are in DJJ facilities who will not have completed their term. The majority of them will be coming back to urban counties, so we are very sensitive to this time of transition and appreciate the sensitivity of the Committee Members talking about this issue today.

I would encourage you to consider working with us to ensure we have resources for a safe transition of those young people back at a very delicate time. Secondly, the Urban Counties of California and the County of Santa Barbara also support the continued funding of the Public Defense Pilot Program, and thank you for making that a continued priority.

And then finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the County of Riverside's support for continued investment in judgeships--sorry--at the local level. You clearly had a conversation with the Judicial Council about the gap that remains between judgeships that have been authorized for the Inland Empire and the actual need that is demonstrated by the Judicial Council's needs assessment that they do on a biennial basis. They continue to have that as a priority. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California. We represent court employees in 32 counties. There were comments made on the first panel that we disagree with, specifically the update on court backlogs and remote proceedings. We disagree with comments that said court employees are content with remote proceedings, and we also disagree that remote proceedings have improved the backlog.

There was a judicial task force on remote, but court reporters did not agree with the recommendation, and court clerks also report various inefficiencies in operations due to remote, along with safety concerns and security concerns. Issues stemming from poor connectivity mean that meetings are often stopped and it takes 15 to 20 minutes to restart them, causing delays.

During the pandemic, remote was the only way to conduct judicial business, but now that the courts are back open, we must acknowledge that the problems caused by remote technology are far from resolved, the digital divide is still a reality, and we can't ignore that insufficient technology contributes to court backlogs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Nick Brokaw from Sacramento Advocates, here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association respectfully urging your support for the Public Defender Pilot Program and urging that the funding remain in place and in full. That funding has nearly paid for itself by reducing incarceration costs statewide. Early data indicates that nearly 1.1 billion dollars in costs have been avoided thanks to initial SB 1437 and SB 775 implementation alone.

These investments not only save costs, but they have an immediate and direct impact on some of our most vulnerable communities, reuniting families, and allowing individuals to become productive members of society in a manner that is safe and promotes public safety. Indigent defense funding has long been plagued by limited resources. Removing existing funding is a major step backwards, harming the very communities that we must rebuild after decades of overincarceration. Thank you for your consideration.

Good afternoon. I want to thank you for uplifting the situation with LA Probation Department. It's incredibly urgent and those youth don't have their own voice in this room. My name is Courtney Hanson. I am here primarily to represent the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and strongly urge you to maintain what is crucial funding for the Public Defenders Grant Program, which does and will reduce our prison population and guarantee a more just criminal legal system.

And on that note, also urge you to make sure we have adequate funding for implementation of the California Racial Justice Act. CCWP was a proud cosponsor of both RJA bills, and it doesn't make sense to solely fund the Attorney General's Office when the vast majority of the work will fall upon Defense. So let's make sure that this new law can actually be implemented in a good way. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, Committee Members, and staff. Ryan Morimune, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're here representing all 58 counties. Appreciate the robust discussion today on the various items and just wanted to provide a few brief comments.

So, in regards to Issue Three, correct implementation, CSAC looks forward to working with the Legislature, Judicial Council, and Administration over the coming months to refine the funding amount and the allocation methodology for legal representation in counties more broadly to ensure that counties can implement the program successfully. For Issue Four, the Public Defense Pilot counties are concerned with any cuts to the program.

Currently, there are 34 counties participating in the program, both large and small, that are utilizing the funding for essential post-conviction services and programs which help counties meet the spirit intent of legislation that has been passed in previous years. And so the proposed cut, as noted earlier, would eliminate a full year of the program. And then last, for Issue Five, DJJ realignment, we'd like to echo the comments of Chief Probation Officers of California. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, in opposition of the reduction of 50 million dollars to the Public Defenders Pilot Program. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Glenn Backes, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and ACLU California Action, supporting the ask for funding to support the implementation of the Racial Justice Act. I think we agree that no one should be put to death, sentenced to LWAP, or other extreme sentences based on appeals to racism or appeals to bias based on national origin. Further, our two organizations asked for continuation without cuts of the Public Defender funding for a fairer administration of justice. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tiffany Phan, on behalf of the California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association. Thank you, Chair Bonta, Members of the Committee for your Comments today. Really grateful for you to point out the funding for CASA that was cut from the Governor's Budget. As you know, CASA is a volunteer-powered organization and the 80,000 wards of the state. The state's children will greatly benefit from the restoration of the funding. Thank you.

We will move to the phone lines now for public comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to make a comment, please press one, then zero at this time. If you've already pressed one, then zero and spoken to an operator, please remain on the line and your number will be called. We're going to start with line 18. Line 18, your line is now open. And. Pardon me. We're to move on to line 30. Line 30, your line is now open.

Thank you. Good afternoon. This is Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Racism and mass incarceration are part of the legacy of slavery, and institutional racism is a reality in the justice system. Fortunately, those victimized by racial bias now have a remedy thanks to the passage of the California Racial Justice Act. However, the burden of implementing this legislation will fall heavily on public defenders. Therefore, we urge the Legislature not to balance the budget on the backs of the indigent who languish in our prisons and to reject the Governor's proposed cuts to the Public Defender Grant Program. Thank you.

Line 15.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Bonta and Committee Members. My name is Elliot Hosman, and in January I joined the Freedom Project of the San Francisco Public Defender's office. Our unit is focused on ensuring that incarcerated people who are rehabilitated have real opportunities for resentencing and parole and the support they need to succeed once released.

On my second day on the job, the Governor proposed cutting $50 million in the state budget, representing the entire third year of this pilot program, eliminating not just my position, but many more across the state. This program is a tiny portion of the budget, just 0.016%, but it creates great savings to the state. This cut is of great concern as the courts are faced with historic number of resentencing hearings each year given recent reforms.

And this is why the funding was allocated in the first place, so that new laws can be implemented. Those we serve have powerful things to say about the importance of this work. Recently returned home, Anthony Redwood explains. I met Governor Newsom back when I was in San Quentin. He was supportive of incarcerated people turning their lives around and doing the hard work to earn a second chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 42.

Good afternoon. This is Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter. I want to support many of the comments from my colleagues and urge you to reject the governor's proposed cuts to the Public Defender Grant Program, which funds public defenders, but also the social workers that work in their offices. And this is one of the best steps we can take to reduce our prison population. Also a very strong supporter of the California Racial Justice Act.

We also supported both bills that instituted that act and we really need to have this implemented to make real the promise of equal justice. The funding will be used to correct the harm caused by racism in our criminal justice system, undoing death sentences and lengthy prison sentences, and preventing the deportations resulting from racial bias in our criminal courts. Social workers stands firmly behind these reforms and ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 40

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California commenting on issue three, RCRC shares the concerns raised by the LAO regarding care court funding. Rural counties believe the estimated participation level may be much higher than budgeted. Many of the assumptions used in building the budget are very low, including assumptions around how much time will be needed for various activities, including hours per case for legal representation. We look forward to working with the Legislature and the Administration to refine the current budget assumptions to ensure counties and courts are adequately funded and have the resources needed to successfully implement this program. Thank you.

Line 43.

Good afternoon Chair Bonta and Members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. We represent court reporters, clerks and other court system professionals who help support our justice system. I first like to align my comments with SEIU, but also wanted to comment on agenda item 250, issue one. In 2021, the Legislature provided $30 million ongoing for court reported recruitment and retention, and yet not a single court used these funds for its intended purpose.

The last year we had to go back to the Legislature and have it explicitly state that this money was to be intended for our court reporters. The number of court reporters in the US has decreased by over 20% since 2012. The shortage of court reporters willing to work for the courts really affects our operations throughout California, with a court reporting crisis actually being worse in California than in any other state. Therefore, we urge the legislatures continue support of funds that support the retention and recruitment of this essential workforce. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Line 47.

Hello Chair Bonta and Committee Members and staff. My name is Yolanda Navaretti. I'm a Foster County resident. I'm an advocate for the Drop LWOP Coalition and I'm writing in individual support of the Indigenous Defense Funding and RJA implementation. I request and urge you to reject the Governor's proposed cuts to the Public Defender Grant Program. Funding public defenders is the best step we can take to reduce our prison population and correct the past injustices. RJA is vital to myself and to my husband.

I urge you to please provide adequate funding for Defense Council and implement the California Racial Justice Act in order to make real promise and equal justice. Thank you for your time.

Line 48.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters, which is a statewide union for court interpreters, regarding issue six, line item five, language access in California courts. We do support the concept of allocating money to help individuals pass the interpreter certification exam. I do want to remind folks that two years ago, this Legislature allocated $30 million to help hire interpreters and courts throughout the state. Very little of this money has been spent.

We believe that not only this effort to help individuals pass the exam, but there should also be funding to help individuals train and go through coursework, prepare for the exam, and sort of a workforce approach to this. So we will be submitting comments to that end to supplement and expand the item. Thank you.

Line 24. Line 24, your line is now open.

Madam Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed & Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association, just like to align my comments with my colleague from SEIU regarding remote proceedings. We disagree with the comments from the panel that court employees are, quote, content with remote proceedings. The court employees that OCA represents certainly are not. There are many issues with remote proceedings, issues that have yet to be resolved and must be resolved before moving forward with this. Thank you.

Line 17.

Good afternoon. Maureen Washburn with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. I'm here with serious concerns about DJJ. As mentioned earlier, my organization released a report detailing DJJ's dangerous conditions and its challenges returning to their counties. For example, we highlight the staffing and overdose crises unfolding right now. Looking forward, we must ensure that neither counties nor Pine Grove are replicating DJJ's neglect and brutality.

The Governor's Budget creates a strong incentive for counties to send youth to Pine Grove, and we align ourselves with the LAO's recommendation regarding Pine Grove and urge safeguards be put in place, including robust data reporting and frequent inspections of the Pine Grove facility. Thank you.

Line 37.

Yes, my name is Tina ..., and I am calling it as an ESC Member for the BSCC administered CalVIP funding that is currently happening right now. It's been brought to my attention that the City of Antioch leveraged a local CBO for their expertise and credibility and then pulled out of their relationship with them with no explanation after receiving the funding. I'm concerned. I want to make sure that this is not a trend.

Across the state. ESC Members spent countless hours rating proposals and collectively prioritized cities with proposals that included partnerships with subcontractors on the ground actually doing the work, as they are the experts in violence intervention and prevention for community that community needs. I'm wondering what is being done by the BSDC to monitor this access across the state to ensure it isn't happening widely, and what recourse CBOs have that this has been done, too? Is there additional funding available for them to come through ...?

Line 27, your line is now open.

Good afternoon, buenas tardes. My name is Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, calling in to talk about issue number five, DJJ. DJJ's primary role and function is the safety and security of our kids, and they have failed extremely since the inception to its closure, there was numerous COVID outbreaks and ignoring advocates' requests and recommendations. And most recently, there's a large concern with the amount of overdoses that have happened both in ...

In most units in ..., as well as a few units in Ventura. Fentanyl has been found in these facilities. DJJ has kept vital information about this crisis from elected officials, the public, and family Members. There needs to be more clarity on what measures are being taken internally concerning overdoses. For example, are youth getting adequate medical treatment, like going to the hospital? We need to know if Narcan is carried by every staff member and if they've been training using it. The public needs to know what DJJ is doing to put a stop to this crisis. Youth lives are on the line.

Thank you.

Line 38.

Nancy Juarez, Center on Juvenile and Criminal justice. Commenting on issue four. I'd like to highlight the Board of State Community Corrections budget of 804,000,000, a massive jump from 289,000,000 in 2021 to 2022. I'm deeply concerned. We strongly encourage the Committee to question what the BSCC is actually doing with an $800 million budget when their minimum standards allow for 20 deaths in just Riverside County Jail system in 13 months.

Families have begged the BSCC to fulfill their role as an oversight body, but they have failed to do so, leading to a separate investigation by the DOJ. Again, how are these atrocities still happening with the budget this size? February 22, the California State Auditor strongly criticized BSCC for weak and vague regulations. The Auditor examined the very high rate of death in custody in San Diego's jails. They pointed to BSCC's weak regulations. For example, safety checks didn't even require staff to check for proof of life like breathing. If the BSCC truly wants to take action, they should have authority to withhold future funding from counties breaking minimum standards.

Thank you.

Line 34. Line 34, your line is now open. We're going to move on to line 23.

Good evening. My name is Jasmine Dellafosse, youth advocate based in San Joaquin County, a Member of California Alliance for Youth and Human Justice. Want to comment on the DJJ realignment and the lack of collaboration with CBOs in the transition plan. Over the last year, we have met with several members of sub budget five Committee and your staff, including Newsom's office and Director Bowlds.

We have shared over and over the deep concerns regarding safety and the transitions for youth, yet we still have not to this day, received DJJ transitions plan. CBO continues to offer critical resources both for youth and our counties. However, we see DJJ and probation continues to not include us in these plans. It's worrisome. Therefore, we urge you all to continue to work with, including CDCR probation judges, to look into CBOs as a step down option for youth.

It's crucial for the sake of our youth and CBOs to be included in these conversations. Again, there are hundreds of youth and they deserve safety. We respectfully ask that you hold DJJ accountable, leaders accountable for the current conditions and take a hard look. I've personally worked with several young people in DJJ.

Thank you.

Line 46.

Good evening. My name is Nallely Navarro and I'm calling from Santa Clara County as a youth policy fellow with Fresh Lifelines for Youth. I'm here today with great concerns about conditions at DJJ. These facilities are dangerously understaffed by forced trained staff and they are dealing with major safety issues, including failing to provide basic necessities to youth, such as water.

Several weeks ago, there was a water main break at Chad and youth weren't given enough water bottles to drink even after they told staff that they were thirsty. Youth have a right to clean water and DJJ's responses to this crisis was dehumanizing. Although this issue was resolved, we are still extremely concerned with how they were managed and ask that these events be investigated. There are still several months until closure and while youth are still in DJJ, we must be assured that their rights and well being are being prioritized. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 26.

Good afternoon. Brendon Woods, Chief Public Defender of Alameda County. I urge to reject the proposed cuts to the Public Defender Pilot Program. We've hired social workers, attorneys and support staff to create a post conviction unit to implement resentencing and criminal justice reforms passed by the Legislature that reverses some of the harsh effects of mass incarceration and disparate impact on black and brown communities. Funding public defenders is one of the best steps we can take to reduce our prison population and correct past injustices.

Every time I hear that the 50 million can be cut, my heart aches for our clients, for incarcerated people and their families that will not be served, those people that will remain incarcerated even though the law provides them with some way to be released. Additionally, I urge you to provide adequate funding for defense counsel to implement the California Racial Justice Act. Thank you.

Line 45.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Colin Ford. I'm a policy associate with Fresh Lifelines for Youth. I'm calling in to share deep concerns about the staffing situation at DJJ. Four out of 10 staff positions are unsold right now, and when DJJ short staff, they rely more on lockdowns and isolating youth themselves. Plus, there's a greater risk, violence and staff use of force. DJJ has refused to send home youth more quickly and their board is denying most eligible youth. These decisions keep youth in a traumatic environment without programming for longer.

We worked with a young person who came home from DJJ last year, and he shared that programming was dramatically affected by short staffing, and when he was planning his reentry, he had virtually no support. He met once with the DJJ staff member to plan his re entry, but they had almost no knowledge of local programs to support him in his home county. He has been successful.

Despite his experience with DJJ and due to his own resilience. DJJ needs to acknowledge that they're operating with a skeleton crew and can't provide the programming they've promised. Youth who are eligible need to be sent home immediately. Thank you.

Line 50.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Jessica Alcocer. I'm with the Inland Empire Coalition for Youth Justice. I also work for a nonprofit, community based organization, Sigma Beta Xi, in Riverside County, and I'm here to comment about the lack of collaboration with CBOs. On item four, we know CBOs are critical resources for young people and there is a lack of involvement from law enforcement agencies to provide pathway for youth to be provided with CBO services.

And we strictly urge that CBOs are included in these conversations and that CDCR probation and judges do have communication open transparency with CBOs to involve their programs as step down options for our young people. And I also wanted to rate the issue in Riverside County jails have been festering due to lack of oversight from BSEC and led to expansive and time intensive DOJ investigation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 52.

Good afternoon. Samantha Seng with NextGen California and we support the work this Legislature has done to reduce mass incarceration in our state. And so we urge you to continue the grant program for public defenders. This funding is used to correct injustices that will further reduce the prison population. We also urge you to provide adequate funding for defense counsel to implement the California Racial Justice Act in order to make the real promise of equal justice.

This funding will be used to correct the harm caused by racism in our criminal justice system, undoing death sentences and ... sentences, and preventing deportations resulting from racial bias in our criminal courts. Thank you.

Line 18.

Behalf of Initiate Justice. Excited to work with the new Chair on these issues. We're glad that you're here. I echo all of the previous comments made by my colleagues related to funding for implementing the Racial Justice Act and adequate funding for public defenders for implementing many of the positive changes this Legislature has made over the previous years. Thank you very much.

And for anyone else who has not made their comment, please press one, then zero if you have not made a comment. And, Madam Chair, it appears that we have no one else who signal that they wish to comment.

Thank you. With the end of public comment, that concludes our budget sub five meeting on public safety. I want to thank my colleagues and the public for your engagement as we move forward and really appreciate the thoughtful, bipartisan dialogue we had on, on several key items related to this agenda. Thank you so much.

Thank you madam Chair.