Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

Please keep your remarks within the allotted times communicated to you by my staff. And remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking. We will begin with BSCC issues one, various budget proposals with Kathleen Howard, Executive Director, Board of State and Community Corrections.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Katie Howard, the Executive Director of the BSCC. Is it okay if I talk about each of these, or would you like to do them one at a time?

You could talk about each of them.

Okay. Thank you so much. The first is the public defense pilot project, or PDPP for short. And this is a proposal that was in the governor's January budget proposal to reduce the third year of funding in the amount of $40 million for a three year pilot program.

As the Department of Finance will underscore, this was not an easy decision by any means, but it was one of the things that was proposed during this very difficult budget year because the funding had not yet been allocated out to counties. So it's nothing to do with the importance and the significance of this project. There have been two years of funding provided out to the counties in the total amount of 100,000,050 and 50 in year one and then in year two.

And so the third year proposals are essentially on hold during the pendency of the budget resolution for the additional $40 million for year three. We will have two years of public defender pilot project operation and an evaluation of those two years. And this proposal is simply to reduce the third year funding in the amount of 40 million. So that's the PDPP. And if you don't mind, I think item two is real simple.

It's simply a technical reappropriation of the administrative costs that are connected to the Mat grant program, the medication assisted treatment grant program. So it's really technical in nature.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that.

Sure. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan Morimune, legislative advocate, California State Association of Counties.

Well, thank you, chair, Committee and staff. Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties, as noted, representing all 58 counties. Really appreciate the opportunity to provide some comments as it relates specifically to the public defender pilot program and the proposed cut of the third final year.

And so the PD pilot funds must be utilized for indigent defense providers for workloads associated with recently enacted legislation as it relates to felony murder, discretionary sentencing, youthful offender parole and invalid convictions based on immigration consequences. And so, first and foremost, we'd like to share that this funding is absolutely critical for counties in all corners of our state, both large and small, and utilized in a variety of ways.

So this could be for social workers, clinical and criminogenic assessment, case screening, case management systems, data collection, community outreach, bilingual paralegal assistance, legal support to address the backlogs at the local level, specialized counsel and other various resources for training, investigations and research, and also improved communication with the ultimate goal of kind of proactive case review so that counties can provide that eligible level of service for, for those that are seeking relief.

And so this, as we all know, has an impact on reentry and public safety at a local level. And then, second, not only does the pilot Fund the previously mentioned services and programming, but also yields considerable state savings, which, as noted in our larger coalition letter, could be roughly $94 million as a conservative projection, but potentially upwards of $700 million when considering the annual per capita incarceration costs and other associated costs.

And then lastly, I'd like to quickly note some of the broader context as it relates, and that is, the California Constitution and US constitution both guarantee the rights of criminal defendants, including the rights of lawyer and effective assistance of counsel. And so this pilot is currently the only statewide major source of funding allocated counties for the provision of indigent defense. And all other funding is derived through the county budgeting process and a small fraction from outside grants.

And so that said, the funding through the pilot only covers a specific segment of their total duties. And I think that's important to note because in counties, you quickly learn that the issues cannot be assessed in isolation. And so, for instance, with changing caseloads, growing population with behavioral health treatment needs, workforce shortages, the waning budget times, and the larger initiatives such as Care act and Proposition one, to mention a few, all of that has a significant impact on public defense.

Thank you for your comments. We'll now move to Skylar Miles Clinton-Cobb Department of Finance.

And so while we recognize the difficult budget times, we would appreciate that you retain the funding for this pilot program and view it as a critically important source of funding for our public defenders. Thank you.

I just want to reiterate, my name is Skyler Miles Clinton-Cobb. I'm representing the Department of Finance. So, particularly in regards to this issue, this program was established in the 2021 Budget act, and its funds have been permitted for indigent defense providers to hire social workers and build more holistic defense teams. But notwithstanding the merits of this program, the Administration proposes to reduce only those 2023-2024 funds that have not yet been issued to the Board of State and Community Corrections.

Yet at this time, $100 million has been appropriated and issued by the BSCC in 2021 and 2022 and fiscal years 2022 through 2023. The Administration therefore believes that given our current economic circumstances and that $100 million that were already provided for this initiative, there should be sufficient data to evaluate the effectiveness of this program so that longer term decisions might be able to be made.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Cynthia Mendoza, Department of Finance.

I would just echo my colleague.

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neill, legislative officer.

Caitlin O'Neill, Legislative Analyst Office we don't have any comments on either of these two proposals, but are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Any Committee Members on this topic? Go ahead, Senator. Member Lackey.

I think I made my comments previously when we talked about this particular matter, and they have not changed. Fact is, if anything, they're even more fortified. I was interested in the letter that was submitted in opposition, and I couldn't agree with it more when it stated the cost savings that this program has yielded over the last couple years. The numbers that were quoted in the letter were between 94 and $781 million.

And everybody knows we're in a deficit circumstance, so why would we be considering cutting a program that saves money? That may be an arguable position, but I think it's worth consideration. And even the greater consideration is one of the greatest values that we have in this American society is seeking justice for all. And it's also no secret that I spent almost 30 years on the enforcement side. But I do also know that prosecution is not without occasional flaw.

And so we absolutely, people deserve to be defended. And when we're talking about the most vulnerable people, and we use the term equity around here a lot, this seems like it's an affront against that equitable arrangement. And I clearly think that this is a poorly considered budget cut, and I will do everything and speak against it at every opportunity because I think this is not where we need to be seeking to, to recover funds, because there's just too much at stake here.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey. The Subcommitee received quite a number of letters from stakeholders opposing this proposed cut in the Governor's Budget. Investments like this are a commitment to our local partners and we should do everything we can to limit disruptions to their operations. These resources also seem like they are saving us money in the back end by reducing risks to public safety, substance use and homelessness.

I know we have difficult budget decisions ahead, but to make a cut like this seems short sighted and would leave us with worse outcomes. It's more of a comment to that so that we could go back and maybe reevaluate where we're at and hearing from those on the front lines that it is working and a pilot program that's there. So thank you so much. Now we're going to transition into issue number five to accommodate travel schedules and those that will be speaking.

That I have here is Jana Sanford-Miller, the deputy director of Office of Research, CDCR. Amy Casas, director, Division of Rehabilitative Programs. Jenny O'Sheurl, policy researcher, Transformative Programming Works. Joel Aguilar, program manager, citizen coach, Mass Liberation.

And Quan Huynh, executive director, Defy Southern California. And Kenneth Hartman, director of advocacy, Transformative Programming Works. And again, this is issue five that we're moving to so we could accommodate traveling schedules. So thank you and you could speak in the order with Jana Sanford-Miller going first.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jana Sanford-Miller and I'm the acting deputy director for the Office of Research. I am here to provide the Committee a brief overview of the statewide recidivism report for individuals released from CDCR in fiscal year 2018 to 2019.

CDCR tracks individuals for three years following the date of their release. The 18-19 report is our most recent and represents a cohort of 36,086 individuals.

The three year conviction rate for this cohort is 41.9% and of those convicted, 50.3% of those were for misdemeanor crimes. In addition to the statewide report, CDCR also publishes several supplemental reports.

Beginning with this cohort, CDCR will also provide recidivism rates for individuals who obtain academic educational achievements, career technical education achievements, and cognitive behavioral program achievements. We anticipate the release of this data to our website soon and the full supplemental report later this summer.

This is the second cohort of individuals who were impacted by the implementation of Proposition 57, which began in May 2017. The data for individuals with enhanced credit earnings under Proposition 57 is encouraging, with an overall three year conviction rate of 39.2% for those with credit earnings, compared to 45.6% for those without.

When we drill down into the specific credit earning categories, individuals earning milestone completion credits have a three year conviction rate of 39.8%, followed by those with educational milestone credits at 26.1%. And finally, rehabilitative achievement credits, which include some of the programs represented here today at 21.1%. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. Jenny O'Sheurl.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Jenny O'Sheurl. I'm a policy researcher for transformative programming works, also known as the TPW. We represent 99 community based organizations providing high quality rehabilitative and transformative programming inside all of California's prisons, and I just want to take a moment to uplift.

This moment in time is both full of opportunity but also somewhat urgent. California's leadership, including the Legislature, has committed to transforming California's prison system because warehousing individuals is harmful for everyone.

I've heard different ideas on how to transform the system, and I'm sure you've heard them all, too. And while we don't promise to have the only way,. You just heard from CDCR, the latest recidivism report shows that those who participate in programming are less likely to return to prison and importantly, those who participated in RAC accredited programming programs that are run by community based organizations recidivate at a rate of 21%.

This recidivism rate is on par with Scandinavian models that have the lowest rates in the world. This is key when we're thinking about smart solutions that California might invest in. You've heard about the numbers from CDCR, and you'll hear more about the impact of programs from my colleagues.

But what makes community based programs different? They're run by members of the community who are often from the communities that are most impacted by incarceration.

They're often led and run by people who have experienced incarceration themselves, who return as credible messengers to help those who are still there. Because CBOs originate from the community, they are also often the people who are there to receive them upon their release.

I offer this to you today in my professional capacity as a policy researcher, in my academic capacity as a doctoral student who studies in prison programs in California.

But I also offer this to you as somebody who's experienced incarceration and understands the urgency of continued progress and investment. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. And now we move to Joel Aguilar.

Good afternoon, Members. My name is Joel Aguilar, and I work for Mass Liberation as a returning citizen coach and a program manager. I stand here today as living proof of the life changing impact of community based programs within our correctional facilities.

These programs have shaped my personal growth and equipped me with essential tools for becoming a responsible and contributing member of society. Participating in these initiatives has been nothing short of transformative for me.

They have shifted my mindset, heightened myself awareness, and provided me with practical communication and problem solving skills. These invaluable skills have been instrumental as I navigate the complexities of the real world.

Yet the contrast between environments with and without these programs is stark. In facilities lacking such initiatives, violence, hopelessness, and demoralization were rampant. I grapple with feelings of shame, stigma, and alienation, leading to periods of depression and anxiety. Inadequate programming impedes skills and hinders integration into society.

It leaves individuals struggling to face independent choices and form healthy relationships. As a reentry life coach and program manager for Mass Liberation, I have witnessed firsthand the challenges my peers face when they lack access to these crucial programs.

With adequate support, the reentry process becomes a manageable, uphill battle. This is where the nonprofit sector, exemplified by community based organizations, becomes indispensable. These organizations serve as a vital link in the continuum of care, offering programs that foster growth, rehabilitation, and successful integration into society.

However, the failure to provide sufficient programming is undeniable, with far reaching negative consequences. I implore you to recognize the pivotal role of community based organizations in the correction system.

By prioritizing funding and support for these initiatives, we can empower individuals to build brighter futures and contribute positively to society. Let us seize this opportunity to affect change and ensure everyone can access the programs they need to thrive, regardless of circumstance. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments. Now we move to Quan Huynh, Executive Director, Defy Southern California.

Good afternoon. My name is Quan Huynh. I'm the executive director for Defy Ventures Southern California. Our mission is to shift mindsets to give people with criminal histories their best shot at a second chance. We run a program in the prison.

It's called the CEO of Unilife. Seven month training, over 2000 pages of curriculum. It culminates in a business pitch competition that's judge Shark tank style from our business.

Volunteers that come in from the business world with us, 84% of our grads find work within the first 90 days upon release. Our recidivism numbers at Defy Ventures is less than 15% at the three year mark. I myself am also a graduate of the program. I've done 22 years of my life in correctional facilities.

I came home in 2015, created my first company six months after that, and now I get to oversee our program delivery over Southern California, so I get to see the impact of the work I know firsthand when I was in prison at the yards that didn't have programs, but I also am a recipient of prison yards that had programs. So I'm here just to be testament to the power of prison programs and how it could work.

I'm honored to be a part of the TPW coalition, where I get to see our impact in these prison yards. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Huynh. Next we'll go to Kenneth Hartman, director of advocacy transformative programming works.

Thank you, Chair. My name's Ken Hartman. I'm the advocacy director for the TPW. I served 38 years in the CDCR before I paroled in 2017. Since then, I've worked to live up to my promises to the people I left behind and the board of parole hearings. I promise to live a life of making amends to society.

The best way I know how to do this is to work to bring the kinds of programs that helped me become better than my worst moments into more prisons so more people inside will have the benefits of these programs. It's what drives me to do what I do.

There's no secret why community based rehabilitative programs are so successful. It's in their name and it's in our organization's ethos. They are community driven, coming from a place of compassion and understanding.

They are also transformative, working to guide and support people like me into becoming better people. These programs rely on lived experience and on being accountable to the communities most impacted by incarceration.

And while we are deeply appreciative of the outcomes we've heard about today from CDCR, we're also ever more committed to seeing these opportunities spread throughout the prisons. These are challenging times, I know, but making wise investments in programs that drive down recidivism, which our programs do, seems like the best policy choice to me.

And I just have to reiterate what my colleague Jenny said earlier. I mean, this is a moment in time where we're sitting here talking to you about programs in prison, and it's four people who've served time sitting around someone from CDCR. I mean, I think this is an important moment of we're all trying to move this to a better place to get the system to work better.

I want to thank the Committee, Chair Ramos, Mr. Lackey, and to Mr. McCarty, along with your diligent and exceptionally talented staff. Thank you also to Director Casillas, who has done wonderful work with us, and Ms. Sanford-Miller last and certainly not least, I want to thank my friends and colleagues here with me today.

Your willingness to be vulnerable and open inspires me. None of this would be possible without all of us working together. So that's why we're here.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And truly the peer-to-peer testimony really brings it full circle. Is there any questions from colleagues from the dais?

I have no questions, but I do have a comment that when it comes to rehabilitation programs, it seems like my observations have been what makes rehabilitation so successful usually is the inmate themselves or the person that's incarcerated.

They're the ones that have to changed their perspective. And I think that one of the most underutilized tools that we have are people like the people that are on the panel here that have had successful rehabilitation.

And why we don't use them more is a mystery to me because people that have my life experience and that look like me, that go into prisons are laughed at and they should be laughed at because we don't relate.

And the only way that you reach people that have made decisions that have got them into prison is to relate and be relatable. And I think one of the most underutilized aspects that our system does not realize is the peer-to-peer relationship.

And I hope that we'll figure out a way to tap into that because I think that's the real future of change. I don't care how good a program could be. Unless that person really wants to change, they're not going to.

And very few that I have encountered in my prison visits have a high degree of motivation to change because there's just a lot of anger, there's a lot of other very toxic energy that they've experienced. Their trust levels are very, very low.

And that's why we have a high recidivism rate is because we haven't reached those people and they haven't made the decision to change. Until they do, they're not going to. And I just hope that these programs, they're still worth trying. And I think that everybody wins in a rehabilitative circumstance and we should continue to be focused on improving that situation.

But I do hope that we'll more utilize the peer-to-peer relationship because you are the ones that are messengers that can reach these people, and some of these people are still in prison that we could be utilizing as well. I mean, some of the programs, some of the honor camps have people that really do want to change and we should use them as well. So that's my only remarks. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Lackey really speaking to that testimony. To have you all here testifying here at the state Legislature in sub six on public safety and highlighting what truly does work. I think, Ms. O'Sheurl, if you can share one recommendation that would help us to continue on this positive path, we're going to give you that opportunity now.

No pressure, right?

Yeah.

Thank you so much for that question. I think what you've heard from all of us is just the difference between, you know, the difference between prisons that have programs and prisons that don't.

You know, our hope is that everyone who's incarcerated, who wants the opportunity to program, has the opportunity to program with a community based organization. And our Members, with 99 of them, were able to reach a large portion of the population.

But we do have wait lists that are years long, and so just the opportunity to expand programming and so that everyone who wants to program has that opportunity, as Ken always says, to become better than their worst moments.

Thank you for that. And I will open it up for others if they wish to speak.

I think the only thing I would add to what Jenny just said is I think that investing in these programs, I think that's the way to look at it. It's an investment. I mean, it's, as was testified here, the recidivism rate is less than half for people who participated in these kind of programs than people who did not. That is a huge statistic. That's not like a blip. That's big.

And I think that that's because of this Legislature's commitment to continuing to invest in these programs, help expand them. And I think the more we can do that, the more of these outcomes will get better and better.

And as a person who participated in these programs myself, I know they work, and I've seen how they work with folks, and I would not be here today if I had not participated in the programs, some of which I represent now. So it's a powerful turnaround moment for me.

Well, thank you. Thank you so much for all of your testimony, and hopefully we're able to get you to meet your traveling arrangements to get you back to where you need to be. Thank you so much. As now we transition to issue number two.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. We appreciate that.

Thank you so much. Issue number two will be the overview of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration. Katherine Lucero, Joseph Donaldson, Allison Hewitt, Orlando Sanchez Zavala from the Legislative Analyst Office, and Katherine Lucero, Director of Office of Youth and Community Restoration. Whenever you're ready.

All right, thank you very much Assemblymember Ramos. My name is Katherine Lucero and I'm the Director of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration. I did want to let you know I'm also a former prosecutor and sat on the bench for 22 years and I couldn't agree more with the last group of folks.

OYCR's purpose is to provide statewide leadership and technical assistance in key youth policy areas to all juvenile justice stakeholders for an end to end transformation of the juvenile justice system, which continues to hold youth accountable, implements positive youth justice practices, and increases community safety. Access to quality programs such as Healthcare, behavioral health treatment, education and vocational training are the central tenets of what OYCR provides, and to date we have provided over 150 instances of TA, connecting system partners to resources and providing information and guidance.

We've conducted a series of webinars to help counties understand promising and evidence based practices that keeps health and human services priorities, as well as public safety, at the forefront. We have trained hundreds of partners, many of them being from the probation departments. We also have issued several policy briefs as we do think that we are policy leaders around this topic specifically.

Specific to CalAIM, we are working with the CBO's, with lived, experienced staff to contract with managed care plans to provide enhanced care management services to youth. We have allocated funding to less restrictive programs for 11 counties, to provide pilot sites that step youth out of the carceral system itself and into a community based placement with high touch models that involve economic support and credible messengers for our emerging adults upon release from detention facilities.

In 2023, we conducted 41 site visits, met with 78 CBO's, and attended 147 public county meetings in order to discern the needs of the county. During this realignment, we have also committed funds to our CBO capacity building OYCR has focused on improving the framework that centers racial and ethnic equity, guiding us to review data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, geography and SOGI.

In those instances, it allows us to create tailored strategies like our campaign to end the incarceration of girls and gender expansive youth who are low and medium risk to public safety, and to focus on the early identification of our Native American youth who are located in our juvenile justice system for the implementation of ICWA for the incarcerated youth, both quality k 12 education and higher education for creating opportunities for youth who are incarcerated and to have equal outcomes of their primary culture peers.

We have assisted in counties getting college prep courses, college classes, and provided Ta to partners for literacy programs. We're also running a pilot in one county. We published a first of its kind report called Building Higher Education Pathways for incarcerated youth in California, and we're working closely with the rising Scholars and Project Rebound. We also have a partnership with the Department of Rehabilitation where we are developing 10 pilot sites and looking at navigators and lived experience workforce development coaches.

Approaching the reform work across the stakeholder system, we engage county offices of education, probation, behavioral health judges, DA's, victim advocates, defenders, social services, youth advocates, CBO's, and youth and their families. We are building statewide level reform with our sister agencies, making sure that these youth are on all of our healthcare agendas. That's probably my time.

Thank you so much for your comments on that and the importance of bringing all diversities into the fold in discussing, especially when you talked about ICWA. I appreciate that. Now we move to Mister Joseph Donaldson, Department of Finance.

Yeah, thank you. Joseph Donaldson, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance.

Allison Hewitt, Department of Finance. Nothing to add at this time, but happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Orlando Sanchez Zavala, LAO.

Also happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Gotta get you on the agenda here. Drew Soderbergh, LAO.

Drew Soderborg, LAO. Also just here to answer questions.

Thank you. We had to add to the notes a little bit, but thank you for this important topic and really moves forward on some things that I truly believe on and its interventions with our youth having more intervention dollars, resources for our youth that are in our state. And I believe it should be more proactive. Right.

Than reactive to the things that we see before this Committee and prior to coming into the justice system, because the system can sometimes do more harm than good when someone's put into the catapulted into that arena. But on the flip side, one can argue that the juvenile justice system should serve as prevention for youth from entering the adult criminal justice system.

So looking at those resources and what we just talked about in the prior panel, too, can you explain in what ways your office supports these two types of prevention strategies?

Diversion, specifically. Yes. Well, our office, very specifically, I need to let you know, has been focused on these realignment youth from DJJ. They have come back to the counties and are living in former juvenile detention centers. So I just want you to know that that's been a huge focus of our, of our work. However, we acknowledge that diversion can- the last numbers that I saw, it's up to 70% of the youth who are diverted, never, they're never seen again.

I would propose that we have more law enforcement, city level diversion programs so that an officer has a place to take a youth to a CBO. And that is also why we're developing CBO capacity, because really, if an officer can take a youth to a CBO, that can be the diversion remedy, that youth may never come back to a justice system. A lot of the data that we have is the data because the youth entered the justice system.

So the numbers that I can talk about today are specifically youth who are justice system involved. But there's a lot of counties, even in my county, Santa Clara, that have police diversion. And so that's before they even get to the courthouse door. That is where our focus is on the continuum. This is a continuum of intervention. And so we have diversion, and there's several kinds of diversion. There's police diversion, there's probation diversion, and there's court diversion.

So I wholeheartedly agree that that is focus that we need to be very intentional about. And we do have a systems change and equity division that works very closely with CBO's to make sure that they have what they need for diversion. But also, I believe that the Medi-Cal reform is going to help with wellness coaches, peer supports, that kind of thing.

And we have hired somebody specifically to work with cbos to make sure that they understand how they can get their folks that are already doing really good work qualified for these public dollars.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that. And it truly is getting engaged and having some type of intervention early in some of these categories. Assemblymember Lackey. Did you have anything to add? Thank you. Thank you so much. As now we move to the last issue for this panel, and that will move on to issue three. Thank you. And we'll start with Ms. Lucero.

Actually, I'm going to- Director Howard is also joining BSCC. Thank you.

With addition of Mister Howard-

Could I ask you a question real quickly before we transition to this on issue? On issue two? It's okay because it's directed on this person here. When grants are transferred from BSCC to. Okay, I guess I'm writing for three. I'm premature. Sorry.

Thank you. As we now move to issue three with the inclusion of Director- of Miss Howard.

Yes, thank you. Hello again. I'm Katie Howard, the Executive Director of the BSCC, and as this issue has to do with the proposed transfer of certain grants from the BSC to OYCR, Director Lucero and I wanted to tag team on the presentation and to just give a real high level intro to the budget change proposal that was included in the January budget to transfer the Title II federal grant program from the BSC to OYCR.

And as I'm sure the Members are aware, in SB 823 from 2020, which was the major legislation that directed the juvenile justice realignment that included a provision that directs all juvenile justice grants, would transition from BSC to OYCR, as is noted in the agenda. So what we have in the BCP is one of the really significant juvenile justice grants that our office has administered for many years.

It's a part of the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention act, or JJDPA, which is, generally speaking, a major federal legislation that includes funding for system reform activities in the juvenile justice arena. So squarely within the wheelhouse that OYCR is working on. It includes funding for grants, approximately $4 million annually, and also includes a Governor appointed state Advisory Committee on Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention. We've been in close partnership with OYCR on the planning of the transfer, so I'll let Director Lucero take it from here.

Yes. Our office has been meeting with BSCC regularly since I came to the directorship in January of 2022. And we have been actively preparing to take the grants as indicated by the statute. Specifically, we have been undergoing a knowledge transfer. We are not going to recreate any wheels. We're working very closely with Director Howard and her staff. They've given us everything from their protocols, manuals, scripts. They're stocking us up very well for this transfer. We are also looking at staffing up within OYCR.

There are some staff positions that will be allocated to us as well. And so we're not only handling the knowledge transfer, but the hiring of new personnel at OYCR, and we are also recruiting for the statewide advisory group. The Title II advisory group is a large part of the Title II grant. And this, this time we are actively recruiting so that we're going to start. We're actually going to start from scratch.

We're going to go ahead and ask folks who are currently on the committee to stay, and if other folks, if folks don't want to stay, if other folks want to come, then we will be actively recruiting and are recruiting. We're also looking at the fact of the grant making and the three year plan. So I think we're well suited and we're prepared and we're ready to go.

Thank you so much for those comments. Department of Finance.

Yes, thank you. Joseph Donaldson, Department of Finance just to add on to what Executive Director Howard and Director Lucero noted so obviously in the Governor's Budget, it provides for the transfer the Title II formula grant program, as well as the compliance and monitoring functions from BSCC to OYCR. Now, while this proposal includes the Title II formula grant program, the Administration continues to evaluate the remaining 2011 realignment grant programs and will provide an update at may revise. For us this proposal serves as the first step to implement this realignment.

Some more to come through the forthcoming may revise. Additionally, accompanying this BCP, there's requested TBL to effectuate this shift from BSCC to OYCR, changing OIC as the designated state agency under JJDPA, as well as carrying out the grant Administration functions as well as making other technical changes. Additionally, within these proposed changes, there's a delay- there's a delay of the development of a new distribution methodology for the Juvenile justice realignment block program. Block grant, sorry, from January 2024 to January 2025.

Now, the rationale for this proposed delays to allow for additional stakeholder engagement, including both the Administration and the Legislature. So I'll pause there unless you have any other questions.

Thank you for your comments there. LAO.

Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. We don't raise concerns at this time with these proposals. Thank you and happy to take questions.

Thank you so much. Dais, questions on item issue three?

I have a question and it has something to do with the ombudsperson. Are you familiar with that role? I'm trying to figure out, does the OYCR ombudsperson differ from the work of Disability Rights Center?

Yes.

And do they interact with each other?

They can. It's possible to that our ombuds office would have a complaint and investigate it and decide that it really is the entity that you described that should be handling the matter.

Okay, so what is the process for them to close out a case?

They will investigate, which could take some time because they do have to look at records and sometimes videos. And once the case is closed out, they will send a letter to the Chief. They also contact the Chief immediately upon the complaint itself.

Okay, that's helpful. Does anybody at the youth or the staff at the facility know when OYCR is going to investigate a specific complaint or do a site visit?

The ombuds office is allowed to make unannounced visits and sometimes does, especially if there's a concern about youth safety or something current. So the facility may not know that our staff is showing up, but they will clearly identify themselves and they will act according to the law.

Okay, good enough. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that, Assemblymember Lackey, and thank you for all your testimony. I just have more of a statement from sub six, and that is, there is no ambiguity to the law regarding the transfer of juvenile justice grant and Administration to the OYCR, especially if this office was created specifically to provide leadership and support to counties over juvenile justice issues. It was an agreement made between the Governor and the Legislature four years ago.

I don't see a reason why this agreement should not be honored, especially when the law is clear on this subject. So that's more of a statement as we go back and continue to look at the budget itself and gearing up towards May revise. Thank you so much for that. Now we're going to transition over into issue four. And there we have Jana Sanford Miller, Deputy Director Office of Research, CDCR, Jared Lozano, Deputy Director Division of Adult Institutions, facility support and maintenance, CDCR, Dave Lewis, Director of Facility Planning and Construction, CDCR, Caitlin O'Neill, Legislative Analyst Office, Patrick Plant, Department of Finance and Lynne Ishimoto, Department of Finance. And when you're ready, we will start with Jana Sanford Miller.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Member of the Committee. My name is Jana Sanford Miller and I'm the acting Deputy Director of the Office of Research. I am here now to provide the Committee a brief overview of CDCR's fall 2023 population projections. The handout provided to you includes our current population projections compared to the 2023 Budget Act projections for reference.

CDCR prepares its population projections twice per year, in alignment with the state budget cycle, CDCRs fall projections utilize historical trend data, including data on court commitments, to predict future populations. For monitoring purposes, we keep track of point in time populations as of the end of each month in order to compare the projected population to the actual population. However, for budget purposes, we use an average daily population over the fiscal year.

That is why on your handout, you will note that the first two years of the projection cycle, current year and budget year, reflect average daily populations and the remaining three years reflect June 30 populations. The fall 2023 population projections anticipate the institution population will decrease throughout the projection cycle. The average daily population is expected to be approximately 94,222 in fiscal year 23-24 and 91,685 in 24-25. As of today, our in custody population is 93,136.

The fall 2023 population projections anticipate that admissions will remain relatively stable throughout the projection cycle at approximately 30,000 to 30,600 admissions per year. CDCR expects the active parole population will decline through fiscal year 2526 increase slightly the following year, and then stabilize, reaching approximately 35,182 by June 30, 2028. Today, our parole population is 35,191. Deputy Director Lozano can answer any operational based questions that you have, and I will also defer to Director Lewis, who can also answer operationally based questions.

Thank you so much. So you're here to answer questions, Deputy Director Lozano, or do you have a testimony also?

Just answering questions for you, sir.

Thank you. Director Lewis, same thing?

Yes. Just here to answer our questions.

Thank you. LAO.

Caitlin O'Neil, with the Legislative Analyst Office. My comments pertain to the broader picture of the state's need for prison capacity moving forward, given the projected decline in the prison population and as you're aware, that significant population declines in recent years and going forward have allowed the state to close close facilities and as well as the planned closure of a prison next year.

However, despite these reductions, CDCR projections consistently show that the population will remain well below a court ordered limit on the number of people that can be housed in state prisons.

In response, however, to suggestions that further capacity reductions could be considered, the Department has cited three main concerns, which are one, the increased risk of violating the court-ordered population limit, two, the increased complexity or potential for increased complexity in finding appropriate housing placements for the population and three, a reduction in the number of available assignments to work, school, and treatment programs. In response to these concerns, the 2023-24 budget package required CDCR to submit an assessment of its capacity needs.

That analysis, which was submitted this fall, primarily was an inventory of the number of full-time assignments that can be offered to the population to work, school, or treatment programs based on existing infrastructure and funding levels, as well as an assessment of the percent of the population that could have one of those assignments at different levels of capacity.

And overall, after reviewing that report, as well as other information relevant to the concern, the administration's stated concerns about capacity reductions, we find that those concerns could be mitigated. For example, reductions to the number of assignments could be mitigated by simply building more classrooms or creating new jobs or types of programs that don't require classrooms, for example.

And so while mitigating these concerns could create costs, we do think that those would likely be one time or temporary in nature and be significantly less than the potentially up to $1.0 billion in ongoing annual savings that could be achieved through future prison deactivations. And finally, we found that state law, which requires CDCR to accommodate projected population declines by reducing capacity in a manner that maximizes long term savings, arguably requires CDCR to further reduce capacity.

So we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to begin planning to reduce capacity by deactivating additional prisons and to report on how to mitigate any resulting challenges. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Thank you. Lenny Shimoto, Department of Finance. The Administration has not proposed any additional closures at this time. The Department will continue to comply with penal code 2067, which requires the Department to consider certain factors when determining whether to close prisons. But the penal code contains a non-exclusive list, so the Department considers the factors identified, but is not limited to only evaluating those factors. And the language doesn't preclude the Department from maintaining a larger buffer under the federal court order,

The department provided its capacity assessment in November to the Legislature, which included information about the impact on rehabilitation based on varying levels of crowding. And as CDCR continues to implement the California model statewide, the population decline has really allowed them to alter their view on capacity, moving away from just the number of beds and the resulting buffer, but really looking providing some normalization by bringing life outside the prison inside and changing that experience.

That means less overcrowding and thus less double selling, which will improve the living environment for the incarcerated as well as the working conditions for the staff. And as there are fewer people housed per prison, it allows for a greater level of programming and rehabilitation because fewer people will be competing for the same opportunities. And although a number of empty beds have been cited, the figure is often misinterpreted to suggest that CDCR has vacant cells. And that's really not the case.

Generally what it would mean is that the top bunk in a cell may be empty in some cases, but the bottom bunk would house someone. Ultimately, the population so far exceeds the design capacity of one incarcerated person per cell. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that. CDCR, you want to have any comments on any of those statements? Not yet.

No comments.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey, any comments on this issue?

Yeah, the only comment I have is that there's a suggestion that the Legislature directs CDCR to report by January 10, 2025, on which specific prisons it plans to deactivate. And I would tell you that there's a lot of communities that are going to be devastated by some of these closures. These are smaller communities.

There's an economic impact that's going to be devastating, and I would hope that that would be a consideration and that we might have some kind of mitigation measures or some kind of suggested pathway to save some of those communities from devastation, because some of these are in pretty isolated parts of the state. For example, Chuckwalla, which is scheduled already to be closed.

I think that there's an argument to be made that that might not be the best place to choose, but that's not my decision to make. But I will tell you that there's a lot of considerations that I hope that are well thought out other than convenience, because these economic conditions deserve to be part of the equation. They're people too. They deserve to also have the state's consideration of how this impacts them.

And I would hope that all those in the decision tree would take that aspect into strong consideration. And that's all I got.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. And questions and statements. Certainly in this budget deficit, when we're trying to close gaps and we see a lot of different cuts taking place throughout the different budgets. Different Sub-Chairs are having hearings now, but it always comes back to me as sub-six Chair public safety, that CDCR is the only Department where the people you serve goes down, but the costs go up.

The response I'm hearing from CDCR to LAO and some of these things that we've been talking about, sometimes when we try to explain or equate those, doesn't measure up. And so I agree that the state should have a reasonable number of empty beds because population can fluctuate in those areas. But we don't want to box you into a corner and jeopardize public safety. That's why that law was there. And the different things that we're talking about within section of the code 2067.

But 1900 beds, empty beds, sounds a lot when I'm talking to my other colleagues on this issue. And some believe that it's unreasonable to have that many empty beds while the cost is still going up with the people that we're serving under this Department goes down, especially when there's other cuts that are being asked to be made.

And so when we start to talk about those savings and those resources. What else can you explain to me or share with me to justify these costs and explanation of those beds, empty beds?

Yeah. So I think I'll start. Deputy Director Jared Lozano, Facility Support. So thank you for your question, Chairperson. I think when people look at what the number of empty beds are, they're referencing the 137.5, which I think it's important for everybody to understand that, that really has determined by the federal court to be the standard of cruel and unusual and not necessarily the optimal, not necessarily where we really want to be as an organization.

As said by other panel Members and repeated earlier with previous panels, housing is very complex. And so not every bed is the same. A lot of them are the upper bunks versus the lower bunks. A lot of them are. When we're housing incarcerated people, we take a multitude of things into consideration, one being their security level, one being their medical and mental health needs and the acuity of that mental health need and medical need, accessibility needs.

These are just rehabilitation needs, of course, which is, I think previous panels have really explained the importance of that. And so I think that's important to identify that when you're running off of a number of 135 or 137.5, it's really there. The other thing is, I worked in this Department in the 1990s. I started my career as a correctional officer when we had triple bunks, when we had overcrowding, when we had no rehabilitation, no programs.

And I will say this, I'm so glad that I'm not in that same Department. I'm so glad that our teams in the field working in these prisons, not only on the custody side, the correctional officers peace officer side, but also the team members that work on our ancillary side or non-custody side, have to work in some of the conditions that we were forced to work in with overcrowding and really not a focus on rehabilitation.

The other thing is rehabilitation in these types of safer prisons that we have today really include community-based organizations coming in and providing services as well. The stress levels that our team members had to go through when we had crowded and rehabilitation was not really the focus, was extremely high in comparison to now. And I think when it's important to say when we close a yard or we close an institution, that we're also closing that rehabilitative space as well.

And so I would say that, and as earlier stated, report that we provided, the Legislature is really a good starting point to have that discussion. And so we understand that there are a lot of people having to make tough decisions during this time. But I would say that our facilities, our prisons are really part of the community. We have education. We have a lot of programs that we see in our communities within our facilities.

Well, thank you for that. And you mentioned the 137.5% design capacity that now is part of the law that it was termed. What was the term you used?

It was. It's like the cruel and unusual standard of access to medical care.

Thank you. And 150% would be extreme then?

No. So the 137% was deemed by the court. The arguments on both sides of that court, court case one said 100%, I believe. 125 and 150.

Thank you. And do you think that's manageable, or is there any insight in going back and asking for remodification to that population cap?

So that would be something that would have to take place outside of my of my.

David Lewis, Director of Facility Plan and Construction Management. That was litigated to the Supreme Court. So I don't think there's really much of an opportunity to revisit changing that cap at this point.

Thank you. LAO, would you like to comment?

I just wanted to note that deactivating prisons, and based on our estimates under CDCR's current population projections, up to around five prisons would just put the density back to 2019, basically pre pandemic levels. So this is not going back to the days of cruel and unusual. What was deemed cruel and unusual? Overcrowding levels. The state wouldn't be able to do that because it's still subject to the court order.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that. Thank you for your explanation. Department of Finance.

Yeah. Lenny Shimoto. Department of Finance. I think changing the percentage could unnecessarily tie the state's hands. As it is now, we are able to go to a lower level. I don't know that we have to force it to a lower level. I mean, the punishment for violating that, which thankfully has not happened, would be releasing people. I believe there's a court-appointed person who would do that and would release the people. So I don't know that it's necessary to lower that standard.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And again, this is within the Budget Committee and we're being tasked to make cuts, defer, and some are asking why, when we're the people that we serve here and within this Department and the cost goes up, when that lowers, the cost still goes up. So we're trying to make sure that we're getting these questions out there and answered as much as we can.

And talking about the 137.5 capacity and the beds that are out there, is there other areas within CDCR that is being looked at as we continue to move through the budget process for different cuts, delays, or different things that could add to all different departments throughout the state when we all have to come forward and share that responsibility in these budget constraint years times.

I think the Department is constantly looking at opportunities to be more efficient and effective in its operations. As far as CDCR, we are looking at a number of options related to headquarters reductions and other things that we can go through. I think part of those were proposed as part of the Governor's Budget. So I do think that we definitely are looking at opportunities to be more efficient.

But for the most part, if you will, areas that are most open to cuts are things that we cut in the recession. At that point, I was the Deputy Director of Fiscal Services and we severely cut our programs for incarcerated people, for example. And I don't think that the state would be interested in doing that. That's what was able to successfully lead to some of these reductions.

So as far as our operations, I think for the most part, you would see that we operate our institutions at a very lean level that would be difficult to reduce without reducing the number of people that are incarcerated at the same time.

Thank you for that. And those programs that were cut during the recession, were any of them refunded throughout this period of time?

I think for the most part, most programs were restored in a different manner than they existed prior to the recession. We're talking 2007-2008. In those periods, we took some rather dramatic program cuts, and that was a different environment that the Department existed in, different credit earnings related to that. I do think when we restored programs, we took a hard look at evidence-based programs that could be restored. And what you see is a lot more efficient and effective programming that existed prior to those cuts.

And during this time in the budget cuts we're all going through that it would be good to bring options. What we're looking at beyond what's just in front of us now, as we continue to move forward towards may revise and further discussion on them. One of the things, capacity reductions means less programming. And my understanding is that the rehab programming budget is very low, less than 4%.

Isn't the reason you don't have a lot of reprogramming attributed to how you've allocated your resources from the management component of it? If recidivism is a top priority.

Well, recidivism is a top priority. A lot of our costs are driven by salaries of the custody staff that exist in our institutions. You know, so you do have a lot more custody staff than you do programming staff. There is no question about that, because those people need to be in every housing unit at all times of the day and night.

And so you have a lot of mandatory positions related to providing that level of service to the institution, whereas the programs were very carefully considered as they were restored, as we talked about to be evidence-based, and generally also had to relate to the amount of programming space that was available to provide programs in.

And at this point, I think we're to a point where for the most part, we're effectively utilizing all of our program space between more traditional programs and also newer programs like the integrated substance use disorder treatment programs and other things that have been shown to be highly effective in an institution. Through those things, I think we, for the most part, have maximized our use of almost all available program space to provide all of those programs. And so, as Deputy Director Lozano was pointing out.

If we were to reduce our capacity, we would also be reducing our capacity to provide those programs to the incarcerated population. And any future program expansions would need program space provided, which can take several years to bring online.

So. Department of Finance.

Yeah, thank you. Lenny Shimoto. Department of Finance again. So while the division of rehabilitative programs budget only represents about 5% of the department's overall budget, we think that's an incomplete picture of the state's investment in rehabilitation. So the Department integrates rehabilitation into all of its programs, and there's significant spending on rehabilitation outside of specifically the rehabilitative programming budget. So we would think that. I would cite that it doesn't include some groundbreaking efforts related to medication-assisted treatment, which helps with substance abuse disorders.

And it also doesn't include higher education spending. It doesn't offer some programs with our nonprofit partners, and rehabilitative services provided to parolees across the state. In addition, there have also been investments made to support a family connections, such as free phone calling and additional visiting. So we believe it's actually higher than 5%.

Well, thank you. Thank you. Even at 5%, if we're really talking about recidivism, making sure that people continue to move forward, even at 5% or even in the future more, wouldn't that be more of a deterrent to the cost down the road in the future?

So I believe we are currently spending more than 5%. And, yes, well, rehabilitation, as we heard earlier, is really important. It can lead to lower recidivism. So, yes, I mean I agree.

Thank you for that. And you talked about space, so we know these programs do work. Right? Correct? So we talked about space. If you had more space, more funding, then we'd be able to offer more of these programs. Is that correct?

Yeah, I think at some institutions that would be accurate. It just depends. There's a lot of things that go into these spaces. Not only are what we call our original or education, slash those types of CTE or Career Technical Education, those types of spaces, but a lot of the spaces are used up by community-based organizations that come in and provide services that at every institution it's a little bit different.

An example would be our communities are more involved in urban areas where there are more people in our community, and especially in those areas in which that the community can afford to be more volunteers and support our institutions and maybe more, some of these outlines. So, yes, at some, but I'm not convinced that it could be that way at all, if that makes sense.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that comment. Any final comments, LAO?

No. Thank you. Just available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

Nothing to add. Thank you.

Thank you all for your testimony. You can see the questions we're fielding now as chair of sub-six, especially when we're up against this budget deficit and again, poising the question. Right? If the people that you're serving within the Department continues to go down, why is the cost going up and looking at alternative areas as far as maybe contributing to the deficit within the budget itself as we further these discussions? So thank you. Any other comments from the dais? No.

Thank you for your participation, your testimony. As now, we will move to issue six various budget proposals. Justin Adelman, Associate Director, Budget Management, CDCR. Caitlin O'Neil, Legislative Analyst Office. Orlando Sanchez Zavala, LAO's Office. Patrick Plant, Department of Finance. Skyler-Myles Clinton Cobb, Department of Finance. Cynthia Mendonza, Department of Finance. I think I got it right the first time. Thank you. And we'll start with Justin Aldemann.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Assemblymember Lackey. Justin Adelman, Associate Director of the Budget Management Branch for CDCR. We have a number of proposals before the Committee this afternoon. Just to highlight two of them, I want to go into the utilities cost request. One additional note on this request as well. It notes 21.9 million general fund in 24-25 and ongoing. That's a technical error actually, and I apologize. It's 21.9 million general fund in 24-25 and then increasing to 43.8 million in 25-26.

It's a 50% reduction for the budget year in recognition of kind of the budgetary difficulties in the state. So that's the first request is just, we've experienced over the last two years about a 35% increase in utilities costs statewide despite reductions in utilization. And this is a funding methodology that we believe will allow us to pay these costs ongoing in a durable solution. The second proposal that I wanted to highlight is a change to the methodology in support staffing for our division of Adult Parole Operations.

This is specifically non-custody, non-sworn positions, associate government program analysts, and kind of HR and contract staff that support the division of Adult Parole Operations. The proposal generally is meant to establish something of a baseline, a floor for these positions in recognition that at the moment they're currently tied and associated with the parole population. So as the population goes up these staff increase, and as the population goes down these staff decrease. However, because they're support staff, they aren't necessarily associated with just the parole population.

They do HR functions, they support contracts across the state, and so it's not necessarily just associated with the parole population. And we believe this proposal is a durable solution to again, establish a kind of baseline minimum support for the division of adult parole operations and for the other proposals. I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Caitlin O'Neil, Legislative Analyst, Office.

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neil with the LAO. We have comments on three of the proposals within this issue, so I will discuss the first two, and then if it's all right with you, I'll pass it to my colleague to discuss the third. So the first one that we have comments on is on the proposal to fund the CDCR's utilities class and create a new methodology that Mr. Adelman spoke about. We find the proposed new methodology and augmentation to be reasonable.

However, we would note that if utility costs end up being lower than budgeted, CDCR could redirect the funding to other purposes. So we recommend approving the proposal but adopting provisional language to require any excess funding to revert to the general fund. And then the second issue I'll speak about is on the proposed 8.2 million augmentation for the cost of phone calls made by the incarcerated population. The proposed augmentation assumes that the August 2023 calling level will persist through June 2025.

However, as we've discussed, the prison population is declining and so but the proposal doesn't assume that. It assumes calling will remain flat or number of minutes utilized will remain flat. And so if we assume that each person usage doesn't change over time, that would presumably result in the Department being somewhat over budgeted. So we recommend the Legislature withhold action on the proposal, direct CDCR to adjust the methodology at the May revision to account for changes in the population.

We think this would just in general promote better budgeting and also potentially free up some general fund resources in the budget year, and I'm going to pass it to my colleague.

Great. Thank you. Orlando Sanchez with the Legislative Analyst Office. My comments pertain to the division of Adult Parole Operations, parole support staff change in methodology to elaborate a little bit more, no upward or downward adjustments would be made to the parole support staff budget and the position authority. When the population for parole is under 42,200. We recommend that the Legislature reject this proposal. Although the existing methodology requires a revision, the proposed methodology is flawed.

We find that the proposal fails to account for certain workload that does not change when the parole population changes, and also fails to account for workload that does change when the parole population does change.

Under the governor's proposal specifically, when the parole population decreases below 42,200, the Department would retain all of its resources for parole support staff, even if that workload decreases with the, similarly, if the population increases above this 42,200 threshold, the Department would receive additional funding even if there isn't an additional growth in some of that workload. In either scenario, we find that the methodology would overbudget the Department. We also recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to submit a revised proposal.

The revised budgeting methodology for these parole support staff should account for both population-driven and non-population-driven workload, and specifically, it should identify the number of support staff needed to address workload that is not affected when the population changes, and provide workload justifications for each of those positions. Then thirdly, have a methodology for the remaining workload that does change with changes in the population. Happy to take questions on that. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Patrick Plant. Department of Finance. In regards to utilities costs proposal, the intent is to use a methodology that allows budgeting to be as close as possible to the actual costs incurred. So for this reason, adopting the budget Bill Language to revert excess funding to the general fund is not necessary at this time. Adjusting the estimated amount based on actual costs of the previous 12 months will result in a better-aligned budget.

As the LAO pointed out in its analysis, utilities are closely linked to maintaining the health and safety of people who live and work in CDCR facilities, which is utmost concern for CDCR and the Administration. And so we believe that this proposal addresses that responsibility. And further, in regards to SB-1008 with the free voice calling. SB-1008 was only recently enacted and we are working from a limited data set to project those costs in the call volumes.

So the administration's priority is to make sure that the appropriate level of resources is available to fund free voice calling, and our approach and methodology will be refined as more data becomes available. And with that, I'll pass it along to my colleague, Skyler.

Hi, so I would like to touch on the support staff ratio situation. So essentially what that is about is the parole population is trending downward, and it has been for several years at this point.

So the division of Parole Operation, or the division of Adult Parole Operations within the CDCR would like to establish a baseline number of support staff who will remain at current staffing levels so that they'll be unhindered in their efficacy and their ability to serve the population as the parolees do tend to decline precipitously just in their number.

DAPO is currently at a point where a lot of operational functions are becoming impaired, and the agency is at a point where further reductions to its count of people in these positions, in these support roles would be likely to impede greatly on its capacity to serve its purposes. A lot of these positions are going to pertain to things like contracts, procurement, fleet vehicles, and just other operational services, business services that are going to remain quite important despite any changes in the population density.

Thank you so much for that. Associate Director, Justin Adelman. Would you speak to the error related to the utilities proposal in the calculations?

That was just a technical error that we had budgeted for the full amount in 25-26. It just wasn't reflected in the proposal, the narrative.

And the proposal in front of us.

Yes.

So it's a technical error?

Yes.

Okay, well, keep an eye on that. Moving forward. Any other comments? LAO? Department of Finance? No, thank you. From the Dais. So with the formula stuff. So we want to look at the correct numbers coming forward before the Dais. We could get those when it's ready to present to the sub-six Committee. So we have all the information that's current rather than technical errors that those are calculations are being based upon.

So we could find out if those calculations still need to be adjusted and if that argument is still there as we continue to move forward. I just want to thank you all for your testimony here today. As this panel is concluded. We will now transition into public comment. Public comment will be for all issues, and we ask that public comment be held to 1 minute each. As you present yourselves to the microphone, please state your name.

Mr. Chair and Members, Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. I just wanted to highlight a few points. While the prison population appears to be decreasing, the number of mentally ill inmates that we treat is not. My concern with the idea of deactivating more prisons is that the majority of these facilities were designed for single bunking. So we would like to echo the comments of the Department of Finance. I don't know how it became.

I believe it was when we had an explosion of increase in prison populations that double bunking became the norm. But from a treatment and safety capacity perspective, we believe that treating individuals in a safe and continuum of care environment is better with single bunking. My second concern stems around the reliance of outsourced mental health staff by the department.

My members have a vacancy rate of nearly 40%, which has caused the Department to rely on the use of outsourced mental health staff, paying upwards of two to three times the cost of state staff. If you want to save money, check out the outsourcing staffing agency contracts. You can find some there.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Amanda Benson. I'm the chief public defender here in Sacramento County. I speak today to urge the Legislature to retain the 40 million enacted in the governor's 23-24 budget to continue the third year of funding for the public defense pilot program. The pilot program is a modest short term investment which has already yielded significant long term savings for the state.

In Sacramento county alone, the PDPP funding has helped secure the safe release of 34 clients who were serving life sentences. These releases reduced overall incarceration time by approximately 552 years, resulting in savings to the state between 8.2 million and 73.4 million. These numbers-- You know the numbers statewide, the potential savings of up to $781 million as well. The PDPP funding also has resulted in critical public safety improvements in our community.

The funds permit our offices to hire social workers and expand our holistic defense teams and create a continuum of care for people with psychiatric and substance use disorders. These funds have allowed us to facilitate the safe and successful reentry planning, enabling individuals to reintegrate and meaningfully contribute to their community after incarceration. Without the third year of funding, these public safety gains will be hindered as indigent defense providers will not have the resources to provide these services.

Finally, PDPP funding has been critical to addressing the disparate impact of harsh sentencing on our communities of color. In Sacramento, 82% of people who have been released through this funding are people of color. These numbers are consistent across the state. California has made great strides in correcting the mistakes of our past through courageous landmark legislation such as Senate Bill 1437, the Racial Justice Act, and the Racial Justice Act for All. But these laws do not work without sufficient funding for implementation and enforcement.

Public defender offices are in desperate need of resources to fully realize the impact of these historic and transformative laws. The Public Defender Pilot Program is a wise investment with long term financial and societal benefits. I urge you to retain the third year funding for this program.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Thomas Sone, public defender of San Bernardino County. Chair Ramos, Assemblymember Lackey, I want to thank you both and appreciate the comments that you made earlier, recognizing the important and hard work that public defenders do on a daily basis statewide. This program is important not only because it addresses the inequities that exist in our system, but also demonstrates and recognizes that public defenders are an integral part of public safety. Our work should not be overlooked.

It should be a part of every public safety discussion. We should be funded so our teams can provide the resources necessary to those individuals to allow them an opportunity to succeed. In addition to that, under this program, in San Bernardino county alone, we have saved the state almost $7 million. This is in far excess of less than 5 million that have been appropriated to us. So this is a fiscally responsible program. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, expressing opposition to the proposed cuts to the public defense pilot, support for increased funding for community based rehabilitative programs, and support for additional prison closures. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, additionally opposed to the proposed cuts to the public defense pilot program and echoing many of the same comments already made, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a racial and economic justice group based in Oakland, California. Our recommendations: close prisons, fund indigent defense, fund victim services including restorative justice and financial help to families in need, fund rehabilitative services both behind the walls and in community. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Ben Amador and I'm here on behalf of Time Done. I am speaking to lend my voice for the call to prioritize prison closures by committing to close at least five state owned prisons in the 2024-25 May revise budget and cutting wasteful prison infrastructure spending. I am in full support of proposals to significantly reduce the $14.6 billion proposed corrections budget and close at least five additional state prisons.

These actions will not only yield significant long term financial savings, but would also align the California shared vision for a more equitable, humane and fiscally responsible justice system. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is KD. I am here with CCWP as a part of the CURB Coalition. Well, before you leave Lackey, I wanted to echo your comments as well.

Keep your comments public, not to any member.

Okay, I like to just highlight the concerns for the communities lost, the communities impacted here. What we realized when we were dealing with closing prisons is that these communities are not necessarily opposed to the prison closure. They opposed to the loss of resources and economics for their community as they should be.

And so what I'd like to highlight is, just like the state had a hand at helping choose this prison for these communities, the state needs to come to the table to help these communities reimagine a better, more healthy industry for these communities. Thank you so much. And I'll cut it there.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Hi, my name is Armano Posada. I am here on behalf of time done. I am speaking to lay my voice for the call to prioritize prison closures by committing to close at least five state owned prisons in the 2024 and 25 May revised budget and cutting wasteful prison infrastructure spending. I am in full support of proposals to significantly reduce the 14.6 billion proposed corrections budget and close at least five additional state prisons. These actions would not only yield significant long term financial savings, but would also align with California's shared vision for a more equitable, humane, and fiscally responsible justice system. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, my name is Ursula. I'm here on behalf of Time Done and I would like to share this with you guys. The Subcommitee on Corrections and Public Safety plays a crucial role in ensuring the successful reintegration of individuals who have been incarcerated back into society. One way to support this mission is by reallocating budget funds towards reentry and transition programs. These programs provide essential resources and support to help former inmates navigate the changes of returning to the community.

Today, I will address these reasons why the Subcommitee should prioritize funding for reentry and transition programs. Reentry and transition programs are essential in helping individuals who have been incarcerated successfully reintegrate into society. By reallocating the funds towards these programs, the Subcommitee and corrections and public safety can improve the outcomes for former inmates and the community as a whole. Today, I will discuss the importance of investing the reentry and transition programs and provide examples of successful initiatives that have made a positive impact in individuals lives.

One of the main reasons why the Subcommitee should reallocate budget funds towards reentry and transition programs is that these programs have been shown to reduce recidivism rates by providing individuals with necessary support and resources to rebuild their lives. Reentry programs have helped address underlying causes of criminal behavior and prevent individuals from returning to a life of crime. For example, programs that offer job training, house assistance, and mental health services have been successful in providing individuals with secure and stable employment, housing, reducing their likelihood of reoffending.

Furthermore, investing in reentry and transition programs can also have a positive impact on public safety. By helping individuals successfully reintegrate back into society, these programs reduce the likelihood of them committing new crimes, endangering the community and endangering the community. For instance, programs that provide substance abuse treatment and counseling have been effective in addressing root causes of addiction and reducing the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behavior.

Can you please wrap it up?

I, uh, I support the closing of the prisons. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Good afternoon, chair. My name is Ed Little. I am a government affairs manager with California's for safety and justice, and I'm speaking in regards to issue four. California for Safety and Justice expresses its strong support for the LAO analysis that shows that the state can close an additional five prisons, saving the state around $1 billion. In 2017, we released a report that detailed how the state could close five prisons and reinvest the savings in a shared safety infrastructure.

Now, six years later, we have effectively closed two prisons and are looking forward to closing seven more prisons. We advocate for these closures of prisons at a moment of time when funding for victims are proposed to be cut. We believe that we should use prison closure savings to invest in safety solutions that more effectively support people vulnerable to crime, prevent crime from happening in the first place, and stop the cycle from continuing.

Investments should be focused on reallocation of dollars to community to build shared safety infrastructure to support survivors of crime and to make second chances real. It is imperative that the state commit to closing more prisons and immediately begin planning for these closures now. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. And just so people know, in public comment, there is an option to provide written testimony to sub six committees so we could get that in the dias for those that have longer than a minute presentation and discussion. Go ahead. Thank you.

Hello. My name is James Glika and I'm here on behalf of time done. I'm speaking to lay my voice for the call to prioritize prison closures by committing to close at least five state owned prisons in 2024-25 maybe revised budget and cutting wasteful prisons infrastructure spending. I'm in full support of proposals to significantly reduce the 14.6 billion proposed corrections budget and close at least five additional state prisons. These actions will not only yield significant long term financial savings, but would also align with California's shared vision for a more equitable, humane and fiscally responsible justice system. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Josh Gagger on behalf of the chief probation officers of California. As you know, with the passage of SB 823, county probation departments are now responsible for the full continuum of juvenile justice at the local level, including care for the highest needs youth previously admitted to the state DJJ. We are working diligently across the state to stand up quality local programs for this population that serve as an alternative to adult court without widening the net of incarceration.

Relative to issue three, we have no concerns with the transfer of the responsibility of the title two grants proposed in the Governor's Budget. I know there was a conversation today about additional grants transferring. Our main focus is ensuring that any transition in state Administration of juvenile grants does not disrupt the stability, consistency, and continuity of juvenile justice funding streams that have provided the foundation for probation Department success with our vast responsibility in the juvenile justice Continuum, pre DJJ realignment.

Lastly, just separately, on behalf of the boards of supervisors of the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside and Ventura, and the Urban Counties of California Association, we're also opposed to the elimination of the final year of the public defense pilot program for the reasons discussed today. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Claire Simonich, on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice, I'll be brief. We oppose the cuts to public defender services, support the increased funding for community based rehabilitative programs, and support the calls to close additional prisons and the 15% proposal budget cut. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good afternoon. My name is Taina Vargas with initiate justice action. Similarly, we support the call for the Lao's recommendation to close an additional five prisons. We also support Senator Wahab's recommendation to reduce the CDCR's budget by 15%. CDCR's population has steadily been declining over the last several years. However, CDCR's budget continues to increase its time that we invest that money in the community. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. My name is Olivia Gleeson, affiliated with Californians United for a responsible budget, and I echo the comments just made. In a time where closing more prisons is more possible and necessary than ever, prison closure opponents are starting to say the quiet part out loud. They want emptying prisons to stay open so they can fill them up again. I urge this Committee to reject tough on crime legislation and policies designed to erase a decade of progress toward ending mass incarceration.

Prison closure and positive programming can all exist together, and prison closures do not lead to overcrowding. Mass incarceration does. I would also like to uplift Curb's prison closure roadmap, which provides concrete strategies to support impacted people and build up economies and jobs of those in towns where prisons close. I urge this Committee to move forward with the LAO's recommendation to commit to at least five prison closures and Senator Wahab's proposal to cut CDCR's budget by 15%. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, Mister chair. My name is Micah Doctoroff. I'm a senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. Here today on behalf of ACLU California action to urge the Committee to reject the governor's proposed cuts to the public defense pilot program. These funds are desperately needed to Fund already struggling county indigent defense systems while saving the state incredible money. Also urging the Committee to reject the governor's proposal is the immigrant legal resource center and NextGen California, who were not able to be here today.

Lastly, ACLU California Action urges the Committee to commit to closing an additional five prisons consistent with current capacity projections and the LAO's recommendation.

Thank you, thank you for your comments.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California we urge you to close five prisons to support funding public defense and to Fund community based programs in prisons that work to reduce recidivism. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hey Nicole Wortleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in San Bernardino county in support of retaining the public defender funding. We were supposed to receive the funding last month and delaying it delays access to justice primarily for people of color. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi Dax Proctor, Californians United for responsible budget simply put, prison closure and rehabilitation are not in tension with each other. Rehabilitation programming and prison capacity reduction can all exist together. We urge the Legislature to compel CDCR to identify further budget inefficiencies as well as explore explore potential cost saving measures in multiple areas, including the elimination of wasteful capital outlay and infrastructure spending, staffing expenditures, and strategic prison closures in the near and long term.

It is important to note that none of these measures would negatively impact public safety. A frequent rebuttal is that reductions in prison spending takes years to realize. That's true, but as the Lao astutely points out in their sub six agenda analysis today, California's budget challenges are a long term issue for years to come and won't necessarily be solved by one time spending cuts alone. We must create a thoughtful policy framework and expedited timetable for prison capacity reduction for future years. This pragmatic approach allows for a more rapid and structured response to the evolving needs of our correctional system while ensuring fiscal prudence and public safety. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello. Alicia Montero California United for responsible budget we continue to hear about the space required for rehabilitation inside the prisons, and we tend to hear about it in the same breath as the capacity issues that were so rampant not too long ago. For those of us directly impacted by the system, we know that people were placed three in a cell. People slept in the prison day rooms and gyms across the state.

When it came to keeping bodies inside, there was no issue in finding and even creating space. CDCR has said CDCR is at 15,000 beds now, over six times what they said was was a doable buffer at 2500. My loved ones been incarcerated for 24 years for a crime committed when he was a youth where nobody was hurt. There is a way to decrease the prison population in closed prisons.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello Tana Opliger with Californians United for responsible budget. First, I urge the Committee to maintain funding for the public defense pilot programming for reasons aforementioned. Second, I urge the Committee to reduce CDCR's budget by closing five prisons, which will save billions. And on this note, I wanted to quickly respond to concerns raised by the Committee earlier that closing prisons will be devastating to rural communities. Some communities, such as Norco, California, have publicly expressed support for the closure of their prison.

These communities know that prisons are prisons and incarceration are actually economic hindrances and they recognize that infrastructure could be better transformed into community assets that create jobs and revenue and build community as has been done in states across the country. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, my name is Annabel Nunez. I'm coming from Santa Rosa. I'm a community Member, a mother and a grandmother. I'm here also. I'm echoing everything that was said regarding closing the prisons. I'm also here to speak on the inequality that I have experienced in the county that I am from and in order to save some money with these prisons is if you treat us all the same.

My brother was murdered and he was sentenced to 39 days in county jail where he was a white male from Napa County. My brother is a Mexican brown individual. If you treated all cases as you treated his, you would have a very big reduction in your prison population. The defense wanted to portray my brother as a aggressor and a gang Member. And at that point I realized that every brown male, every black male, every child of color has a target on their back. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Any other public comment hearing? None. Sub six public safety is adjourned.