Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety

I'd like to call Assembly Budget Subcommitee Number six to order. Good afternoon and thank you for your patience today as we had some bills that we were presenting in different committees in Tax and Revenue today.

Today we will have panel discussions on Proposition 36 focusing on judicial perspectives and we will also hear budget proposals from the Judicial Branch and the Department of Justice. Speakers are listed in speaking order for each of the items.

Due to our late start time, please keep your remarks within the allotted time communicated to you by my staff and remember to introduce yourselves prior to speaking. We will now move to our first issue for this panel. We will have one panelist appearing remotely and on the time.

I know it was due to me, so I'll give you a little courtesy. Not too much, but little. Thank you for that. We're going to move Forward on issue 1, Proposition 36 overview perspectives from the Judicial Branch and Proposition 47 funding for substance use disorder treatment and mental health program programs.

We'll have presenters Rick Owen, Senior Staff Counsel, Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Francine Byrne, Director, Criminal Justice Service, Judicial Council the Hon. Lisa Rogan, presiding Judge of San Bernardino Superior Court and Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges, Adversary Committee the Honorable Scott Cooper, Supervising Judge, Collaborative Courts, Orange County Superior Court, and he will be appearing remotely.

We also have with us Darrel Parker, Court Executive Officer, Santa Barbara Superior Court Chair of Court Executives Advisory Committee Caitlin O'Neill, legislative analysis office and Anita Lee, Legislative Analysis Office. We will start with Rick Owens.

Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to participate this important hearing. My name is Rick Owen. I'm Senior Staff Counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.

I'll be giving a brief overview of the changes Prop 36 made to California criminal laws with a focus on the treatment mandated felony aspect of the law, and I'll give a few examples of how the law could be implemented. The changes Prop 36 made can be grouped into three General categories.

One, creating a treatment mandated felony offense for repeat drug possession. Two, increasing penalties and expanding sentencing enhancements for drug sale offenses, particularly those involving fentanyl and three, increasing punishment for certain thefts, including expanding California's petit theft with a prior offense.

I'll focus my comments on the treatment mandated features felony part of the law, but more details about each of these categories are provided in the handout we prepared and I'm happy to answer any questions about these aspects of the law.

The common thread in all of these changes is that they enhance the power of prosecutors to bring felony charges and impose harsher penalties for drug and theft offenses, however, the severity of punishments depends on the discretion of prosecutors and on the willingness and ability of individuals to complete treatment programs.

So, diving into the treatment mandated felony aspect of the law, Prop 36 created a treatment mandated felony offense for drug possession. This offense can be charged when a person is arrested for drug possession and has two or more prior convictions for drug offenses, regardless of when those prior offenses occurred.

The offense is a wobbler, meaning that prosecutors can choose whether to charge it as a misdemeanor or a felony. Charged as a felony, the defendant can be sentenced to up to three years in jail for the first offense and three years in prison for any later offense. The misdemeanor punishment is one year in jail.

When a person is charged with a treatment mandated drug offense, they must be allowed to participate in a treatment program approved by the court and the prosecutor as a way to get their case dismissed at the first court date or any time after when a defendant requests it, the court must order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation and and submit a report to the court, the prosecutor, and the defense.

The court must also order a caseworker to determine whether the defendant can receive Medi Cal, Medicare, or any other relevant benefits.

After these assessments are completed, the court must set the parameters of the treatment program, which can include drug or mental health treatment, job training, and any other conditions related to treatment or the successful outcome for the defendant that the court finds appropriate. The law does not specify any limits on how long treatment programs can last.

Courts must make referrals to programs that provide services at no cost to the participant and have been approved by the court and the prosecutor. Prop 36 does not directly address what should happen if treatment is unavailable at that time.

People who accept treatment must first plead guilty or no contest to the offense and then attend regular court dates to show their progress in the program. If if a person completes the treatment program successfully, the drug possession charge will be dismissed.

However, if treatment is terminated due to unsatisfactory performance or the conviction of a new crime, the court must proceed with sentencing and other aspects of California law, including the three strikes law, which can double the length of any felony sentence when a person has a prior strike can intersect with Prop 36 generally and the treatment mandated felony Specifically.

To illustrate the potential outcomes for people charged with treatment mandated felonies under varying circumstances, I want to give a few common real world examples of how this law plays out.

In the first example, a person is arrested for a treatment mandated offense and has two prior drug possession convictions, one from 10 years ago and another from 20 years ago. On the record, this person could face the same charge as a person who has prior convictions from within the last year.

After being charged with a felony, the person is evaluated for treatment and referred to an outpatient program. They attend regular court dates to show their progress and their case is dismissed after they complete the program. The next example relates to a person who has a prior strike on their record.

In this scenario, a person is arrested for the treatment mandated felony and has a conviction for a serious crime that occurred 10 years ago and now they have a strike on their record. In addition to several more recent drug convictions. This person accepts treatment but doesn't follow up and stops attending court dates.

When they are brought back to court, they face a six year prison sentence. The key takeaways from these examples are that treatment programs author or passed a case dismissal, but defendants must remain engaged in treatment and regularly attend court dates.

People with strikes face harsher sentences if they fail treatment and even old drug offenses can trigger a treatment mandated felony. But sentencing outcomes will vary in some Prop 36 expanded prosecutorial discretion and increased penalties while providing a treatment based alternative for some defendants.

Its real world impacts depends on access to treatment programs, charging discretion of prosecutors and how courts navigate sentencing decisions. Thank you and I look forward to any questions.

Thank you so much for that. Now we'll move on to Francine Byrne, Director, Criminal Justice Services, Judicial Counsel.

Hi, thank you very much for having me here today. I'm going to talk a little bit about the implementation of Proposition 36 statewide. I want to make it clear that the courts are interested in implementing Proposition 36 in the most effective and efficient way possible.

We conducted a survey of the courts that we just received information from 49 counties who represent roughly 98% of the state's population. I want to give a word of caution, of course, that we're only three months into the implementation and the courts and counties are still working through some of these processes.

Based on the data we gathered, we estimate that the courts will receive around 25,000 cases annually that would have been filed as misdemeanors were it not for Prop 36 felony cases, and case processing time is significantly longer than misdemeanors.

I know that some of the other panelists will speak more specifically to this, but they're more likely to go to trial and experience more continuances. And we have some anecdotal evidence that these Prop 36 cases will be even more complicated than your average felony cases.

And it's important to note that Judicial Council did a study that found that the workload cost of processing a felony versus a misdemeanor case is between $650 and $700 per case.

So in the survey we looked at both the number of theft related crimes that were committed under penal code Section 666.1, as well as the drug related crime mainly under penal code section. I mean, sorry, Health and safety code 11395. It looks like roughly the breakdown is about 45% now are theft and 55% are drug related.

I want to again another word of caution that these results vary quite a bit within the county and based. Because the prosecutors have so much discretion, you can. There's a lot of changes. We also think there may be changes over time as the prosecutors choose to go towards different case types.

We asked the courts what some of their concerns were and they mentioned really two major ones and essentially that there's no additional funding for the courts to process these cases. It will be a workload burden that they're concerned about.

May result in delays in processing other types of cases as well as longer time just for the Proposition 36 cases. They're also concerned about treatment services within the counties as well as supervision for some of the. For some of the counties as well.

Many of the courts intend to use their treatment courts, their collaborative court models to help with the processing of the treatment mandated felonies. But there's not a perfect fit here. One of the best practices in collaborative courts is to identify work participants based on their risk to public safety as well as their treatment needs.

They don't tend to necessarily use charges to put people in there. So there will be an additional kind of work they can think to go from the assessment that's done for Proposition 36 cases to an actual collaborative court. There's a number of other issues around that that I think that the judge Rogan will speak to as well.

So in conclusion, they're concerned about the cost, but they're also, so far they've been really hitting the ground running. Most of the counties that responded actually began getting cases prior to January 1st. So sort of, and I believe it was actually enacted on December 18th. I think so.

So the counties and prosecutors and the courts have really hit the ground running on this. So I think it's happening as we speak. There will be changes. And we're happy to report back as we get more information from the courts. Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that presentation. Next we're gonna move to the Honorable Presiding Judge Lisa Rogan.

Good afternoon Chair Assembly Members and thank you for the opportunity to present. I present as the Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee to the JCC. This the impacts of Prop 36 have been wide and varying in the first couple of months depending on the county.

Some counties have been seeing filings as much as 500 within the first three weeks. Some counties where the district attorneys have been more measured in their approach. In fact, San Bernardino being one of them, because they want to have the treatment piece in place before they start hammering the filing so that the program is successful.

One thing we know is that it is having a severe impact to judicial resources, staff resources and the courts in General in San Bernardino. County. You are well aware, Assemblymember Lackey, Assemblymember Ramos, that we have facility needs where we can't get the cases in that we currently have.

So looking at a caseload to increase by the thousands is what I've been told by the Assistant District Attorney Furman, those are impacts, real impacts that our courts are seeing. And in the counties where the cases are not as high, what is important to note is that these cases are going to take a long time.

Treatment consists of successes and failures. You don't get out of the program just because you may have had a setback. So the cases that typically would have in the past taken us perhaps four to six months to resolve will now take in excess of two years. What that does is impact our caseloads. Our caseloads are already overextended.

We have funding issues for those caseloads. We have facility needs. In Victorville, for instance, as an example, we have had to transfer an entire caseload to a second district which is over an hour to three hours away, a drive for some of your constituents because we don't have the facility capacity to hold these defendants.

The other piece to Prop 36 that has not been mentioned is that there is a no bail, no or piece to that program that goes to prearrangement, meaning that for those who are charged with 11395 or 266, those have to be individually reviewed by a judicial officer before they are even eligible to bail out according to a bail schedule or be released on their own recognizance, which puts further stresses on our in custody, the ability for us to house those in custody in our court facilities which are woefully inadequate at this time.

And again allowing for the additional caseloads at pretrial, pre preliminary hearing and arraignments Additionally, when we look at the ongoing piece of whether or not our justice partners have the ability to provide for treatment if there's no bed available, that doesn't mean that the case goes away.

It means that we now have to monitor that defendant that much longer until there is a bed or until they do decide whether they're going to accept treatment.

Treatment can be accepted, as the gentleman said, at any time throughout the process, meaning that at the beginning we can order a hearing, have that defendant evaluated, have an acceptable treatment process, and the defendant says, no, I don't want to accept treatment.

You then go through the hearings of preliminary hearing, pre trial, trying to resolve the cases, all the way up to trial where the defendant can then say, guess what? I do want that treatment.

So we now have prolonged, we have utilized court resources, we have expended funds to go through the entire program, the entire justice system just to resort back to. Now I want treatment and we are required to give that person treatment and we want to do that.

But understand that unlike our collaborative courts where the treatment program is up to typically a two year program, Prop 36 does not provide for an ending date. So this program can go 234 years depending on the needs of that individual.

As we talk about the funding needs for the court, the judicial officers in San Bernardino we don't have, we are the lowest judicial officer funded. So as my District Attorney called me and said, hey, we want this to go into our collaborative courts. Your judicial officers are so good at doing treatment courts and getting great benefits.

My answer to him was definitely that will not happen. I do not have the judicial resources, nor do I have the footage facility availability to create additional treatment courts for Prop 36 without funding, without judicial officers or without the appropriate facilities. So these are some of the things that the courts are looking at.

I know that other courts are creating they. Every court has different judicial availability, resources available and facility availability. So it is here hitting each and every county somewhat differently depending on the needs of the community. Some communities are hit harder with the theft crimes. Some communities are hit harder with the drug crimes.

Each of us are having to weigh our options on how we're going to attack this unfunded mandate that we are now moving into. And it will only get longer and longer as these cases prolong and more cases come in. That's on top of all of the resentencing and other mandates that we have to do.

Thank you so much for that insightful testimony. Next we're going to move to the honorable Scott Cooper. Supervising judge for collaborative courts in Orange County.

Good afternoon. I want to thank you for inviting me as well, and particularly for allowing me to appear today on this important topic. I'm going to be focused on the treatment mandated felony portion, the 11395 portion that the prior speakers have mentioned.

I'm going to try not to repeat some of what Judge Roby mentioned because some of it also applies to us as well. I've been a judge in Orange County for about seven years now. For the last two and a half years, I've been supervising our collaborative courts here in Orange County. The most immediate impact of Prop 36 in Orange County is somewhat to as Rogan described, and that's the increase in our felony filings.

It sounds like Orange County is at the high end of the range c described. We've seen approximately 1100 felony filings in the 11 or 12 weeks since the statute has gone into effect. Right now, the 11395 tribe and mandated felony filings account for about 30% of all of our felony filings in Orange County.

And that creates all this resource issues that Janice Rogan mentioned there a minute ago in terms of courtrooms, judicial officers, staff resources, et cetera. Moving beyond just the courtroom resources, though, are the evaluation resources. So we set up a centralized evaluation process for those who choose an evaluation under Prop 36.

But that requires again, courtroom space, creating a protocol and marshaling the resources for the actual evaluations. Fortunately, our healthcare agency has stepped up and provided some Clinicians that perform our evaluations both in jail and in the courtroom. Each week there's about six or seven Clinicians that are doing those evaluations.

And of course, the GA's and the public defenders also have to provide lawyers to staff that court as well. Then once they come into program, then we look at the resources required for monitoring and treatment and that's where our drug courts come in.

We have been able to utilize our drug court teams and send the participants who plead into Prop 36 out to our drug court judicial officers. And we have our judicial officer, our public defender, our DA, our healthcare clinicians who can help manage that population.

But importantly, these people cannot be integrated actually into the drug courts for reasons previously mentioned. For first of all, our drug court population is typically on formal probation and these Prop 36 participants are not on formal probation.

And secondly, the drug court participants tend to be a higher risk category and we don't want to mix those two populations. So even though we can use some of our drug court team, we cannot actually put these People in the drug courts.

Healthcare does use the same resources for treating these people, whether they're in drug court or in Prop 36. So far this has worked. But we only have approximately 30 people in the program right now.

And as those numbers go up, and I'll talk to you in a bit about those numbers, as those numbers go up, I'm concerned that our drug court resources are going to be stretched beyond their breaking point in terms of opportunities and challenges for Prop 36.

Obviously, the major opportunity here is to get more defendants with substance use disorder into treatment and long term recovery. And that is an opportunity that we take seriously and want to take advantage of.

And the numbers I went over previously with just the 1100 filings in 11 to 12 weeks, you can see that there is a tremendous need out there. But there are challenges. And most of those challenges stem from a lack of resources first just to conduct the evaluations themselves.

Although our healthcare agency has been able to give us some clinicians to do those evaluations, and as we do have some lawyers, one public defender to cover that court, we still can only handle a certain number of defendants each day, each week for evaluation.

And there are more defendants who want to be evaluated than can be evaluated each week. So we're having to place a cap on those evaluation dates and push those evaluation dates further and further into the future.

And as we've learned is the further you push it out, the less likely a defense is going to want to try to get into the program and the less likely we're going to be able to get them into treatment.

So the resourcing issue, in terms of evaluators, in terms of lawyers, in terms of court resources, create a bottleneck right at the beginning. Then there's the treatment resources themselves. You heard about this a little earlier. Over 90% of the people that we're evaluating for this program are eligible for residential inpatient drug treatment.

The problem is there aren't enough residential inpatient drug treatment beds in the area. And so what that means is there's oftentimes a wait to get them into residential programs. And that wait, again, prevents us from getting them into treatment early.

It makes it less likely that they're going to accept treatment and that the treatment's going to be effective. The other big area of resource needed is housing. And this is something I know you hear about all the time. Most, I would say a vast majority of the Prop 36 evaluations, these defendants are unhoused.

And housing, of course, is a crucial part of the treatment process. They're not going to be successful without housing. And frankly, what we have found is that during the upfront evaluation process, these people are much more likely to accept the treatment program if they're presented with some sort of reasonable feasible opportunity for long term housing.

Down the road we have some short term options with the residential treatment which again there's a wait for oftentimes and with a bridge, a short three month bridge, housing after residential.

But beyond that there's very few options for housing and that's creating a real problem in trying to get these people into the treatment program, get them to accept it and make them successful in treatment.

So far, of the 1100 or so folks that have come through that have been charged with this crime, about 150 have sought evaluation for us. So that's about a 15% rate. Of the 150 or so that have sought evaluation, about 30 have taken the program.

So about a 20% acceptance rate for those who are evaluated and offered the program. While we're certainly happy to serve those 30 people and we want to serve many more, those rates are lower than we'd like, of course.

And so we had to take a long we're having to take a look at why those rates are so low. And there's a lot of reasons for that that we're finding out.

And again, it's early in the process, as someone previously mentioned, but we think some of those resourcing issues are creating some of the reluctance to come into program.

Those delayed evaluation and delayed admission rates, the inability to secure long term housing are creating a problem for getting people to accept treatment and the ones that are in treatment making people successful in that process.

So for me, the bottom line is even if the Prop 36 and the increased penalties do create a successful incentive for defendants who have substance use disorder to seek treatment, that goal is going to be thwarted if there are not sufficiently robust evaluation, treatment and housing resources to support them. And for that, of course, we need funding. I really appreciate your time and consideration today and thank you again for letting me appear remotely.

Thank you so much for your insightful testimony into the process of collaborative courts. Next we'll move to Darrel Parker, Chief Executive Officer, Santa Barbara Superior Court.

Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I also am here as the chair of the Court Executive Advisory Committee representing the 58 court executives in the states of the Judicial Council.

And whenever I hear of a new program, I think, okay, I've got to stand up a brand new program right at the time that we took a $97 million cut in funding in the branch, which just made it that much more difficult.

And operating a courtroom in California requires that I have security, a Clerk, an interpreter and an in court reporter in each one of those courtrooms. So you can just imagine the cost of operating a court. You've heard Judge Rogan and Ms. Byrne talk about the numbers and the duration that's coming in.

It just exacerbates our already difficult staffing problem. We have a tough time competing with our neighboring governmental entities now during this time, like the county and the municipalities who have given cost of living increases to their staff. But the courts have been trying to deal with further furloughs and avoid layoffs during this time.

So staffing during a difficult time while we're standing up a new program really requires some additional funding for us. We're one of those courts that had a more measured approach. It took a while for our Behavioral Wellness program to put a program in place.

We've worked cooperatively with our justice partners and we'll begin receiving those filings starting in April. My big point today is really to highlight the need for funding for the courts to operate any new program. Without that additional funding, we are going to experience more delays in processing filings and recording of judgments throughout the state. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Thank you. Caitlin O'Neil with the Legislative Analyst Office. We were asked to provide a brief overview of the required state spending of state savings under Proposition 47 and how Proposition 36 interacts with that. So specifically Prop 47, which was approved in 2014 and reduced punishment for various lower level theft and drug crimes requires that savings that the state accrues as a result of those punishment reductions, primarily from having a lower than otherwise prison population be spent on certain grant programs, including programs that fund mental health and substance use treatment.

So Proposition 36 partially rolled back those punishment reductions that were made by Prop 47, and so it will reduce the savings attributable to Proposition 47 and therefore impact the savings estimate that is done annually and then results in an appropriation for those grant programs as required under Prop 47. The Governor's Budget reflects 90, or excuse me, 88 million in savings being allocated in the budget year accruing from savings, accruing in savings this year, which is a $6 million decline relative to the pre-Prop 36 level of savings.

And then the Administration is projecting the savings to decline by more in the out years, specifically reaching 25 million or a total cumulative decline of 70 million by 2026-27. And as you'll recall in our last hearing we talked about CDCR's estimate of the population impact of Prop 36 on the prison population.

We talked about how CDCR assumed essentially a full reversal of Prop 47 even though Prop 36 isn't a full reversal. And so we talked about how our office found that that assumption leads to CDCR overestimating the impact of Prop 36 on the prison population, and that carries over here and results in the savings being underestimated in our view.

And we estimate that the savings that are reflected that are expected to occur in the current year and are reflected as an appropriation in the in the Governor's Budget for 25-26 to be underestimated by a few million and that the underestimation will grow to potentially the tens of millions in the out years. So we recommend directing the Administration to address this in their methodology at the May Revision. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Thank you for your testimony and for the remote testimony. Bringing it back to the dais. Any comments, Mr. Vice Chair?

It's a mess. That's all I can say. I think what's not a mess though is the message that it was a very clear message that was sent by our public that we need to do a better job. And in order to do a better job you have to fund that, and that's what we're failing to do. And I don't understand why. I don't understand why the Governor's perspective or Administration has failed to provide direct funding to support the courts and counties to do their job. It's a mystery to me. Why is this not addressed in a real way?

I mean we're talking about BSCC's substance use disorder treatment mental health programs being funded through Prop 47 savings. And there's a little debate on how accurate, how much is going to be lost, but there is going to be a difference. And so my question is, are we eliminating the programs that those are funding? I mean there's no funding mechanism, so what do you do?

The funding that is required, sorry, the state savings under Prop 47 that are required to be spent on the grant programs, which includes 65% of the total going to BSCC for those program you mentioned. We're still waiting to see what the final reduction is.

It probably, it appears that the reduction is going to be relatively small in the near term. So the Governor's Budget is showing about a $6 million decline, and that's because the savings get allocated in the year after they accrue. So for the budget year, the savings, the reduction to the savings only reflects six months of implement, of Prop 36 being in effect. So this is kind of a technical point. Hopefully this is helpful.

But basically I'm saying that the impact on the Prop 47 savings and therefore that money available for treatment doesn't really show up until two years from now because of that one year delay issue. That being said, and we also think that the savings will not go down by quite as much as the Administration is projecting.

But nevertheless, we do agree that there will be a reduction, just not as much as the Administration is projecting in our view. And in our ballot materials we estimated low a reduction relative to the $100 million sort of pre-Prop 36 level of low tens of millions at full implementation.

But of course that's subject to a lot of uncertainty. And then I think you're raising the point that there's a wider shortage of treatment, and which certainly this Prop 47 piece is just one source of funding. So that's kind of a whole other policy area, if you will. Happy to try to answer any additional questions or follow up with you if there's more to discuss on that.

Well, I have just a very broad question. Does the Administration admit that it's underfunding Prop 36? Is there even an admission that that exists or do they feel like it's sufficiently funded with this proposal? I mean, if they don't even admit that there's a problem, how do we fix it?

I don't know if I could speak to the Administration's position on that. Maybe Department of Finance is here.

I understand that, but you're the closest we've got, I think, on the panel.

Go ahead if you want to.

I'm Anita Lee with the Legislative Analyst Office. As part of our budget work, we have had discussions related to the courts as well as on the county, the health side. As mentioned, it's just being implemented, and I think that there's a recognition that more information needs to be collected. In terms of how it's being implemented, I think you can hear from the testimony it looks a little different from county to county. The needs might be a little bit different.

And so I think that, you know, in our discussions with the Department of Finance, I think there was maybe an indication of waiting for some of that additional information and that those conversations would potentially continue. So I think that's probably the best insight that we can give you at this point since, you know, we can't speak specifically for the Department of Finance.

Well, I would just tell you that it's my perspective and by many who live in my district and outside my district, especially in rural counties, we were underfunded already, substantially underfunded. And now we've created a situation where there's a greater need because we want to do this treatment avenue. That comes at a cost, and it comes at a cost if we don't do it. But I would say that the public expects us to do the right thing, and that is to fund these treatment programs. And we're woefully short of doing that through this budget.

Thank you so much for your comments. Any others? Assembly Member Schultz.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you to all the panelists for your testimony today. And I want to piggyback off of the Vice Chair's comments. I agreed with much of what you had to say, sir. The one thing I want to, before I get to my questions, I want to just emphasize is that while this is now a solution that the Legislature and the Governor need to find together, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that, look, as a Legislator, if there's a great program that I want to fund and I don't want to pass that along to local jurisdictions.

Your Honor, you use the term unfunded mandate. Very familiar with that as a local leader. I can't just approve a program through the Legislature. I have to demonstrate through the budget and appropriations process how I'm going to pay for it. And with all due respect, sir, I think that when we look back at history, the proponents of Prop 36 also failed to answer that critical question of how we actually pay for the treatment programs that many people voted for the proposition for. So yes, it is a problem that we now inherit and have to solve.

But I think it's also a good reminder of sometimes the deficiencies in our proposition system. Just because you have an idea, if you haven't answered the question of how you actually pay for it, we now land in hot water and we have local jurisdictions and our court systems trying to do more with, frankly, ever decreasing resources. So with all that said, I do have a couple very quick questions. I suppose these are really to our judicial officers and representatives.

So from I just want to make sure I'm tracking. From what I take from your testimony, it sounds like your perspective is that collaborative courts, while very helpful, may not necessarily be the best or most appropriate venue to absorb the new intake of folks that will be seeking treatment under Prop 36. Am I mischaracterizing or misunderstanding any of that?

No, you're on point. And for many courts, the collaborative courts cannot undertake that task because they don't have the sufficient funding in judicial resources, facility space, or staffing. Additionally, it would be difficult to put those treatment programs along with the collaborative courts because the collaborative courts have defendants and participants that are steadfast and serious about their treatment.

And if you know anything about treatment programs, it's successes and failures, it's advances and retreats. To interrupt those treatment programs would be a disservice to the individuals that are already in those collaborative courts because they're serious about it.

And you're going to mix in a potential candidate that is opting do I want treatment or do I want state prison? And are they really serious about the treatment or are they just avoiding state prison? That's a question. Because to go into a treatment program, you need to be serious.

And to interrupt the the collaborative courts, which are very successful in the programming that they do, would be a disservice. Which is one of the reasons why I hesitate to join the two together. Never mind that I don't have the funding or the judicial resources to do that. These individuals would be spaced out throughout my entire trial. Judicial officers and those court cases, which would then increase the caseload of an already overburdened court system. So I'm just adding on to their caseload and I am expanding the length of the cases that those judicial officers have to mind.

So when they're going through the treatment, they have to come in for progress reports, they have to have judicial oversight, they have to be checked on, their progress has to be noted. All of that takes into staff resources, funding, judicial resources, and a building to walk them in. Some of us do not have a building to walk that many people in, and so facility funding is imperative, and that's where we're lacking.

Thank you very much. My second question is, and I don't know if any of our panelists can speak to it, but it is an outstanding question that I have. For the handful of California counties that don't have collaborative courts. I'm looking at, for example, Alpine or Colusa County. If you happen to know, are there existing structures the courts are able to tap into if somebody wants to seek treatment but don't have a collaborative court in place?

It would be an ad hoc type of structure that would be put together based on the mandate that we have to provide that treatment program. So you would have to create it. It's just not in place. So the formalities and the staffing and same resources that would have to go into that.

Assembly Member Schultz, those are pretty small counties, and the number of judicial officers in those counties, you're just forcing another calendar upon them. They would have to work it into their existing structure. They're just not large enough to create a separate calendar for that purpose.

Thank you both very much for those answers. My next question... I am almost done, Mr. Chair. My next question is for the LAO. If you could just remind me, based upon your assessment of the Governor's Budget for the upcoming year, roughly speaking, how much in Prop 47 savings would we potentially have access to to help fund even a fraction of these programs contemplated under Prop 36?

I'm sorry, I'm not following exactly what you're asking for. Would you mind repeating that?

Well, let me walk through it. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but there's going to be, there is some savings under Prop 47, correct?

Yes. So that's about 88 million estimated to occur this year reflected in the Governor's Budget for 25-26.

So I suppose the question I'm asking is, in theory, is all of that funding available at our disposal to help fund what is contemplated by Prop 36, or is some of that funding already committed elsewhere and not touchable?

I understand. Okay. So under Prop 47, 65% of that money goes to the Board of State and Community Corrections for substance use and mental health treatment programs to serve people in the criminal justice system or who've been diverted from the criminal justice system, essentially.

So in other words, it would be of the type of treatment that people going through the treatment mandated felony process would, you know, would be getting. And Prop 36 did have a provision that specifically said that treatment under Prop 46 is eligible for Prop 47 savings. So that piece 88, or 65% of the 88 million.

But there's already programs out there that, you know, apply for those funds. They may be serving a similar population. There may be overlap in their population. And then the remaining portion goes 25% to Department of Education for truancy and dropout prevention grants programs and then 10% to Victims Compensation Board for trauma recovery services.

Thank you very much. My last question here, Mr. Chair. I apologize. There's a little bit of background to it, but I'm going to, this is a question that I posed to the entire panel for anyone who wants to share their perspective. But one thing I am concerned about is what we're seeing across California right now.

Some of you have testified to it. I would describe it as justice by geography, really tied to where you live. The Senate had a joint hearing on the issue last month. Almost everyone in the room is probably aware of that and probably tuned in. I saw that one of their panels did offer some preliminary data on how many individuals chose the treatment option after they were charged with a treatment mandated felony. At the time, as of last month, Napa, Marin, and San Francisco had zero. Sacramento had two. Yolo and Contra Costa County had three.

In the Senate hearing, and I believe one of our panelists spoke to this, it was reported that the Orange County District Attorney had filed 757 treatment mandated felonies and only 11, 11 opted for treatment. I believe it was also stated at the hearing that 95% of the filings were against people that were homeless without housing.

Most recently we heard that Los Angeles County had 172 filings for treatment mandated felonies between December 1 and February 20, although we don't know yet how many folks actually opted for treatment. I bring all this up to say that, while the numbers are preliminary, it is showing that there is some wide discrepancies, variation county by county. And so I guess the question to the panel is this, is anyone here concerned by this trend that we're seeing across the, across the state. And if so, what do you think this Legislature can do to address it?

I'm going to go back to what I said earlier in that they can accept treatment at any time during the process. So while those numbers may reflect what has happened in the beginning of the process, the process has not ended for many of those individuals, and they will opt in for treatment sometime throughout the process, which is one of the problems in that. So you're not going to see or be able to determine right off the bat whether or not this is a successful program because their attorneys are going to be advising them. If they really don't want treatment, I'll just use an example.

If someone really doesn't want treatment but they want to avoid state prison, they're not going to take the treatment option right away. They're going to see is the deal going to get better or sweeter as I go along. Right before trial, is there going to be a better deal at that point because the courts don't have enough courtrooms to hold all the trials that we need to hold than the than the offer was at the pre-preliminary hearing stage, for example.

And at that point, if the offer is better, guess what, they're probably going to take the offer, or if it's not good enough, they will then opt in for treatment. So you're going to have a wide range of times when these defendants opt in for treatment or reject treatment because they have the entire time through the process and the process is quite lengthy.

Thank you very much. Did anyone else have anything they want to add?

I would just add that, once they do opt in, the clock starting then. So now you've got two more years after that to go through a treatment program or longer. And so while it might be delayed at the startup, we're going to be experiencing it for quite some time.

Thank you both very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, thank you. And along the same discussion that Assembly Member Lackey and the points that he moved forward with Prop 36 moving forward on what we're now being addressed and what we're being accountable for as far as some type of response to treatment for those that want to seek it.

So to Judge Cooper, if you're still on the line, you mentioned that there was some areas where people weren't taking the treatment aspect of it. Housing was an area that you talked about. And always keeping in the back of our mind that those individuals can opt into treatment at any time during the whole process. So what do you think? You brought up housing short term, long term. But do you believe that the treatment aspect of collaborative courts is something that is working?

In the collaborative court context, yes. I do believe collaborative courts work. The treatment works. Again, this is somewhat different, I'll say. The primary difference really is probation involvement. Our collaborative courts are typically post-plea. They pled in, they've been sentenced, so they're on formal probation for monitoring and supervision. This Prop 36 population, their sentence or judgment is deferred under the statute. So they're not going to be monitored in a formal probation contact. So that does create some issues potentially down the road. But that's on the supervision and monitoring side. If you're just looking at the treatment side, I believe the collaborative courts do work when we can get people the treatment.

And right now, for instance, in our drug and our DUI courts, we can get people into treatment, but there is sometimes a wait to do that because there's already a shortage of treatment facilities and treatment beds, at least in our county, and I know around the state. And so the issue is how quickly can you get them into treatment. Once they're in, I definitely think it works.

Thank you for that. And can you talk a little bit more about those that are in the collaborative courts and substance abuse and some of the other areas, veterans and some of the other topics collaborative courts address? Is there issues in there where treatment actually comes into play for all?

Yeah. So in each of our collaborative courts, we're almost always dealing with defendants who either have a substance use disorder, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, and or a mental health, serious mental health problem. And it's usually, it's oftentimes and you get people that have both, what we call co-occurring disorders, but it's either one or the other or both. And so in all of these programs we are trying to treat these people to address those underlying what we think are the root causes of the criminal behavior, either the substance use, pardon me, and or the mental health issues.

So all the collaborative courts, whether it be our veterans treatment court, whether it be our mental health courts, drug courts, or DUI courts, they all provide treatment for these areas and they just provide them to slightly different populations. For instance, obviously the veterans courts are veterans, drug courts focus on people who have drug issues. DUI court, it's for alcohol issues. And then of course, mental health court speaks for itself, it's mental health issues. But all of them involve a treatment component.

So those that are currently in collaborative courts are there not because of Prop 36. Prop 36 had different cases come start in January, I believe 1,100 cases, if that was something, was testified to. So I think trying to draw a clearer picture of those that are in collaborative court now, now with Prop 36 moving forward, were entrusted for treatment to move forward. Is that a different population that now we're trying to put together under the same treatment and collaborative court system?

It is a different population and it's for some of the reasons, like Judge Rogan may have mentioned before. But our drug court, the closest analogy or the closest population would be our drug court population because these, of course, are people who have hard drug addiction. So that would be the closest population.

But there's a couple things about our drug court population that makes them different. One, as I mentioned, they're on formal probation, and so they don't, the people that come in on Prop 36 are not. And so there's just a disconnect there that wouldn't allow to integrate those populations together.

Secondly, and this gets back a little bit to what Judge Rogan was mentioning, they're in what we call a different risk and need profile. Typically, our drug court population may be on the higher risk side in terms of a risk of criminal behavior, recidivism, et cetera.

And also maybe our Prop 36 people are in a different need position because of where they are in the process and why they want to get the treatment versus those that are in drug court. And what we know from the best practices and from the evidence and from many, many studies that have gone on is you don't want to mix different populations that have different risk and need profiles because you can detrimentally affect the various populations.

So our goal is to keep them separate, but to use some of the same drug court resources that we currently have in terms of our judicial officer, our healthcare clinicians, et cetera, to serve this Prop 36 population just in a separate calendar. I hope that answered your question.

Definitely. Starting to show a clearer picture of disparities between the two and what Prop 36 was entrusted to do and what we're entrusted to deliberate here on this dais. But can we get back to those that are on Prop 36? You mentioned that they're not under formal probation.

So they're in the system, and at any time during the process they could opt for drug court or different things moving forward with their different judicial process, where those that are on probation in the collaborative courts have already been moved in that direction. So how do we paint a clearer picture, at least to this dais and to myself, of how we end up moving forward to get the support to those that drastically need it?

Well, regardless of whether they're on formal probation or not, whether they're in drug court or whether they're a Prop 36 treatment program, the same treatment needs arise. They need very similar types of treatment. And on the housing side, I would say the Prop 36 population probably has a higher need for housing than the drug court population.

Typically, by the time they're in drug court, we have them in some sort of stable housing. The vast majority of the Prop 36 population is unhoused. And so in terms of resourcing, we just need to increase the treatment and housing resources, frankly, for everybody. But for purposes of this hearing, in this population, we definitely need to increase the treatment and housing resources in order to properly address this population.

So is it safe to say that you had way more success on the treatment and housing versus the collaborative court funding?

Not necessarily, because I don't see the two as being separate. Like I said before, like for instance, our healthcare agency uses a lot of the same resources and provides the same treatment to these people, serves them in the same clinics, puts them in the same residential treatment centers, regardless of whether they're Prop 36 or in what we call our drug courts.

So I think there's an overlap in terms of resources there. So I don't think it's really one or the other. If you're funding the treatment and if you're funding the housing side, you're going to be helping both populations. At the end of the day, it's a population who has substance use disorder, and they're committing crimes at least partially because of that substance use disorder. And that's the same whether they're in drug court or whether they're in Prop 36. Their needs, their treatment needs are the same.

Thank you. And now to the penal code. Those that are in, I guess, probation now and those that are being sentenced under the new Prop 36. How does that affect both in going through collaborative courts ultimately to treatment if they so choose?

Well, as the judge mentioned, the people who are in collaborative court have already pled out to a felony and now they're on probation. And the probation department is involved as being the person, the point person that's leading them through to and through services, coming to court, to collaborative court with them, talking to the judge and the other stakeholders there in court about how the person is doing.

With Prop 36 treatment mandated felonies, people also plead guilty to a felony in order to accept treatment. However, they're not sentenced, and I think that's the distinction that the judge is talking about. Their case is left in a deferred status. They are not referred to the probation department. And so they don't have kind of this person or this department that's responsible for leading them through the process.

You know, I would mention that the Penal Code Committee has done research on the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel for people early in the process and how public defenders can be that point person for individuals, especially early on in the process, to connect them to housing, to connect them to services.

And so that could be part of the solution, is to ensure that public defender's offices have the appropriate funding as they engage in that process. But I think that's the distinction is that the people who are sentenced to collaborative court are referred to probation, where the people who have accepted a deferred treatment, treatment mandated felony are not sentenced and are not under formal probation.

Thank you for that. And housing continues to come up in treatment in collaborative courts, and drawing a clearer picture of those that have been sentenced for formal probation that are moving forward and those that have not, and their case is, I believe, still open in a layman's type terms that any time during that process they could opt in for treatment.

And hearing Vice Chair Lackey and what was promised to the people in the State of California under Prop 36, how would you recommend we move forward in trying to comply with what was promised to the people and what we're being held accountable for?

I will just say that I'll give you an example. In our collaborative courts in San Bernardino, in each court, and this is going to give you a realization of what we're facing. Each of our collaborative courts in San Bernardino, Rancho, Victorville, Joshua Tree, it's a cap of 50/50 defendants for each of those courts.

When you're talking about adding thousands of cases, this is a train wreck coming because there is not sufficient resources to give those people the treatment that has been promised. There is not judicial resources to oversee those cases because, as he stated, probation's not going to oversee it. The Judicial Department, the judge is going to oversee it.

The judge is going to bring those defendants back periodically to make sure and get the progress reports from whatever program they're in, whatever program has been found, if there is one, to monitor that. That's additional calendaring, additional appearances in these courts that we do not have the space for, that we do not have the resources for. Staffing, judicial officers, or facilities.

There's nowhere for us to monitor these people. You're asking us to do something that is not provided for. When I say 50 defendants in each, that's it. We're capped out. We wait for someone to roll out before we bring another one in. And now you want to add on top of that, it's not going to happen.

Thank you for that. Just one more question, collaborative courts. Drug courts are part of the collaborative court system?

Yes.

And under drug courts, that could include veterans, the other components of collaborative court?

Yeah, so we have a separate veterans treatment court just for veterans, but it's a very similar model and it has the same sort of treatment protocol in terms of treating folks who have substance use disorders.

Can collaborative courts move forward in looking at Prop 36 and getting treatment for those individuals?

Again, I think the concepts are similar enough that we can use a lot of the same resources, to the extent we have resources. And that gets back to some of what Judge Rogan's talking about. To the extent there are collaborative core resources with capacity, we can use those same resources to try to serve this Prop 36 population to the point of having a separate progress review calendar, having a judge oversee it, having a healthcare clinician monitoring their treatment, coming back for regular progress reviews.

So we can do all that even though it's not in an actual collaborative court because for the reasons I said before, they're different populations. But we can use many of the same resources, and it would look very similar without the probation element. So yes, that can be done, just not, they wouldn't be integrated into the actual collaborative courts, but it would look similar and involve a lot of the same resources, to the extent those resources are available.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And the treatment component, those that successfully go through the treatment component. What is the success rate that you're seeing now?

Well, for Prop 36, it's way too soon. I mean, right now a successful Prop 36 participant is someone who gets to the program, who shows up to residential treatment, and who stays. Like, that's where we are at the point of the program right now because it's only a few months old, and a lot of these residential treatment programs are 90 day programs. So we're way too early to see really a success rate yet on Prop 36. Success rates in the other collaborative courts are high and the recidivism rates are excellent.

What would you attribute to the success rates with the, with those outside of Prop 36?

I think it's a combination of effective evidence based treatment practices and having a robust treatment community that can be, that you can send people to. It's also a monitoring and supervision is a part of it. And that gets back to probation, what Mr. Owen was talking about earlier in terms of, of those participants being monitored by, and almost handheld, if you will, by a probation officer. I think that's a big part of it as well. I think the team concept behind collaborative courts and having the DAs and the public defenders and probation and healthcare and the courts all working together to make these people successful is another big part of the success of those programs.

Well, thank you for that. Any further questions from the dais, Vice Chair?

It's not really a question, it's more a comment. I have to believe that the Administration does not understand the urgency or the demand that Prop 36 has created. I don't believe that that is the case. And so I'm hoping that there have been ears listening to how underfunded the judicial system has been for an extended period of time, especially out where I live, more so in San Bernardino portion of my district.

And now we have a new expected intervention that is... I don't believe that the voters should be the ones to do budgets. I think that's up to us, and we carry that burden. And if we're not responsive to what has been requested, then we are not good stewards.

And so I'm hoping that we can all collaboratively put our minds together, figure out a way to address this, and even move in the right direction. Because we're moving in the wrong direction. We're over expecting our judicial system to respond without giving them improved resources. That's an unrealistic, that's a recipe for disaster.

So I'm hoping that we don't go down the recipe for disaster. We improve. We collaboratively work together. Well, let's not finger point, let's just figure it out. Let's all work together. And I'm hoping that the Administration is listening closely because I think that they just misunderstood what the expectation is.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And that is the purpose of the hearing and the panelists coming forward to really show, one, the burden that's continuing through the judicial court systems in the State of California now coming forward with the demands of Prop 36. And so we are looking at it.

We are making sure we're hearing all sides. Certainly, the division between Prop 36 and those that are on probation is something that's enlightening and understanding the process a little bit better. However, we still are tasked with trying to come up with some type of solution and moving in a direction, but also hearing firsthand from yourselves on these issues. Any final comments from the panel or LAO?

I want to thank you for your time in elaborating us on this process. Thank you so much.

We will now move to Issue 2: Trial Court Operations. Um, Mr. Theodorovic.

[Roll Call for Issue 2: Trial Court Operations]

Yes, Assembly Member Ramos. I'm going to immediately turn to, uh, Shelley Curran to present, um, our position on the items, in the, uh, agenda, in the interest of time.

Thank you and apologies for, uh, mis—um—pronouncing your name.

One more time.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you very much for having us here today. I'm Shelley Curran, I'm the Administrative Director of the Judicial Council. Um, I want to begin by saying that we are appreciative and supportive of the, the, budget that the Governor has proposed in January.

And we are committed to working with you all, um, and the Department of Finance and the Senate, as you finalize the budget over the course of the next several months.

Notwithstanding the challenging fiscal times, we're appreciative of the, um, increase in this current year of $42 million.

As Mr. Parker mentioned in the last panel, uh, trial courts received a $97 million cut, and with the January proposed budget, um, the Administration uh increased the—or decreased—that cut by $42 million.

With the decreased cut, the trial courts were immediately able to pivot to reduce some of the negative impacts that occurred because of that initial $97 million. Things like furloughs, reduced hours, hiring freezes. So, we're appreciative of the quick action, um, by the courts and the council to move quickly on that.

Included in this year's upcoming budget—the proposed budget—um, it includes that 42—continuing the $42 million reduction in cuts. Um, an increase in $40 million in operating costs.

An important $6.3 million increase for court appointed counsel, an ongoing significant concern that, that we have to make sure that, that those who cannot afford, um, representation habits were appreciative of the governor's inclusion of a bump for that, those staff people, and $136 million for some of the needs that we have for facilities.

We moved quickly in January to respond to the, to the increase in 40—of the 42 million—and again, that allowed the trial courts to pivot quickly on that.

So, I will be brief here and just say that we look forward to continuing to work with you and the Administration, um, and the, uh, Senate in the coming months as you finalize this budget, so thank you very much.

Thank you so much for that. Next, we'll move to the honorable Lisa Rogan, Presiding Judge, San Bernardino Superior Court.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm going to talk about the immediate, uh, impact that the $42 million restoration provided to the courts. You know, we are in the service of people in service. And the initial and primary—what I would describe as primary—restoration impacts went to the mandatory or voluntary furloughs that 15 courts had implemented.

43 courts were holding positions vacant or delaying the hiring of those positions, and then 30 courts, uh, experiencing delayed services at the counters, wait times, or document processing. But what I want to emphasize, also, are secondary impacts that are equally important, that we were able to, uh, realize with this restoration in funding, cybersecurity, and technology services.

Our largest court, Los Angeles, went through a cyber-attack that shut them down, and all of the other courts were looking to that court to see how, what are you going to do? Because it's one of our biggest fears as presiding judges, um, CEOs throughout the, the, state, uh, what happens when a cyber-attack occurs.

Because Los Angeles had the people, in the right places, they were able to respond and pivot quickly. Amazingly was their response, when they walked in, second day or third day, and were able to hold trials and continue on with business, without their regular available, uh, technology.

It's because they had those people, in the right places, to service them and address that cybersecurity. We all went through that worldwide crowd strike, uh, shutdown, uh, in San Bernardino, what that meant because we had to put people on each individual computer to restart those computers. That meant sending out a team to Needles. That's a six-hour turnaround.

If we didn't have the people to send to Needles, to Joshua Tree, to Barstow, to put their hands on each and every computer to get us back up and running, in the immediate time frame, we would have been underwater, uh, with providing services.

So, these are some of the things that we were able to continue on with, with that restoration, making sure that we have the appropriate cybersecurity technology services, overtime and security. When our, when our, uh, staff work overtime, we need to have in certain.

It's, it's unfortunate, but some of our courthouses are in locations where security is imperative, to have our staff be able to walk to their cars after hours and be safe. Um, we're not able to do that, but, but for this restoration and allowing us to provide that security.

So some of—those are some of—the things. I will say that San Bernardino, we were on the heels of hiring because we were so understaffed. We were 300 understaffed. We had just met 200 hiring in 18 months.

What that means is that we have to provide the training for these people to come in and service our customers. When you take someone from Target, they don't know our court processes, but we need to train them.

And that restoration allowed us to continue with the training so that we can provide adequate services for the people at the counter, that then translate to, uh, hearing their cases in court, so that the judges know, how am I going to help this person? What is their case about?

Without that restoration, we would not have the ability to provide for training. The additional thing is scanning and records. When we talk about savings—money, savings.

Um, San Bernardino, we have 49,000 banker boxes full of files. 7—1.7 million—case files that we are trying to scan to put on digital, so that we can service our, our, community and save. We're spending upwards of $80,000, just to have a place to store those records.

And while we scan those and put them on—in—the digital world, we're able to alleviate the payments of those locations, those warehouses to store the files.

So there are—while there are—people, mandatory furloughs, and service counter hours, there's also additional—or what I call secondary—uh, impacts to the court that we were able to save and move forward to keep our courts efficient and effective in servicing our community.

I know that Darrel Parker is going to add to some of that, in his experiences, but those are some of the things that are very important and critical in keeping our courts operating fully and functioning, with that restoration. So, thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Uh, Mr. Parker.

Yes, thank you. Uh, Judge Rogan just mentioned, uh, cyber issues. Those are the things that keep me awake at night. Um, having learned from Los Angeles' experience, we believe that cyber insurance—cybersecurity insurance—was something that was sort of like as dependable as my car insurance.

And it turns out that's not the case. And we ended up canceling that contract and increased our costs, so that we could have expertise on standby now, just to deal with the increased, uh, costs of having companies like Cisco providing, um, professionals on retainer to help us recover and intervene, in the event that we had some cyber-attack.

When we first experienced the, the $97 million cuts, we acted quickly, and we met with our labor organizations and spoke to them about this problem. And we were fortunate that they joined with us and agreed to voluntary furloughs.

Some courts were not as fortunate and imposed mandatory furloughs, but over 40% of our court employees actually took voluntary unpaid days to help deal with the, the shortfall. And my hat's off to them for contributing to part of the solution.

But that solution comes at a cost. That meant that our public service hours were not there. Our processing times for filing electronic filings. People can file 24/7 now, in this day and age, but a human still needs to process that document on the other end. And that body wasn't there because they were taking an unpaid day off. And so when they come back to work, the backlogs are just mounting.

Um, other courts experienced, uh, similar delays in processing filings, but also recordings of judgments. So, you expect once you've reached a judgment that it would quickly be recorded so that you can enforce it. But those delays also frustrate litigants when the judiciary is met with those cuts. The restoration, we were grateful.

Um, in fact, as, as a result of that, my, my court, Santa Barbara, our clerk's office closed at 1:00, come April 1st. We're now extending our public hours so that there aren't people pulling on the doors to try to get in. Um, this is in an environment where we're having a hard time competing for talent.

While I'm able to restore some hours, I still have vacancies similar to, to San Bernardino's, though nowhere near the volume. I don't want that records problem that she—that they—have in San Bernardino.

Um, but I mentioned earlier that our counterparts in government, both county and municipal government, were giving pay raises at the time that I was voluntarily furloughing employees. I'm losing employees to those organizations, because now they feel those are more dependable governmental entities where they could seek employment. And so, it's a real challenge to keep employees.

And Judge Rogan mentioned this. It's a lot of investment to train somebody in the language and the processes of courts, and the right demeanor at the front counters, to deal with people at the most difficult parts of their lives coming into the court. You want compassionate, intelligent, informed professionals at that front counter.

And these cuts, and the challenges in this labor market, have made that a real difficulty for us, for us to meet. So, while we have some success restoring services and we appreciate the restoration, we are not made whole.

And while we're promised, or it appears that there's, there might be another 40 million coming down, that's still $15 million short to, to fund the branch, at the same time that those other entities gave increases. Even if we're made whole of the $97 million, I'm not catching up with the, the salary increases that those others received.

So, we're grateful that we're moving in the right direction with the—with this—restoration, but we have more work to go if we're going to increase access to justice in California.

Thank you so much for that. Anita Lee, L.A.O.

Anita Lee with the L.A.O., thank you so much. We have three recommendations for the Committee on this issue item. I'm going to unpack them, because there's a little bit going on.

So, the first two recommendations are going to deal with the proposed increase in funding, and then the third recommendation is going to deal with the proposed budget Bill Language.

So, first focusing on the increased funding that straddles, kind of multiple years, '24, '25, as well as '25-'26 and ongoing.

So first focusing on '24-'25, um, we recommend that the Legislature have the Judicial Branch share its processes for how it goes about making mid-year budget adjustments, and how it ensures the Legislature has, uh, the opportunity to weigh in on them.

Um, as mentioned, the '24-'25 budget includes a—the budget for this year—but going back to '24-'25 includes a partial $42 million restoration of a $97 million ongoing cut.

That restoration for '24/'25 will not impact the General Fund, because it's going to be paid for using unspent, unrestricted monies from the Trial Court Trust Fund. That, as we heard from the Judicial Branch, has already been implemented.

But when it was going through the process, there was a little bit of confusion about whether, and when, legislative review, or input, should be sought. And so having a little bit of a discussion on that can make sure that everybody's on the same page, to make sure the Legislature maintains its oversight abilities.

So then turning to '25-'26 and the ongoing years, um, it, the Governor's Budget includes an ongoing $82 million General Fund augmentation to Trial Court Operations. That consists of $40 million, for increased costs, and then $42 million related to continuing that partial restoration that I just mentioned. But, this is all now going to be paid for from the General Fund.

And so, because this is an ongoing General Fund commitment, moving forward, we do recommend that the Legislature carefully weigh it against its other budget priorities. On the one hand, this money will improve service levels. You've heard of the different impacts that they've had at the courts.

On the other hand, the state is going to be facing multi-year deficits, and that likely means that, um, you won't be able to provide, you know, additional funding without then taking reductions in existing programs. And so that's going to be something that you want to carefully weigh as you're making your decisions.

To the extent that you do provide additional funding, we would recommend that you consider providing priorities for how to use the funding. For example, if you think that phone and counter or our restoration should be prioritized. And so that would really help ensure that the money was used consistent with legislative priorities and expectations.

So then moving to the third and final recommendation I mentioned, this is related to the proposed budget bill language to transfer unspent, unrestricted monies from the trial Court Trust Fund to the General Fund. In concept, this is actually quite reasonable because it benefits the General Fund and the monies would then be available for other budget priorities.

The proposed language, as it stands though, really limits legislative oversight because the language is quite vague and really provides the Department of Finance with the discretion to calculate how much is transferred. So, to address that, we actually recommend the Legislature modify the language in two key ways.

The first modification would be to provide guidance for what monies should be considered for transfer, or for how the calculation should be determined. So, for example, it could be very reasonable to require the return of any unspent General Fund monies that were provided for a particular purpose.

So, for example, savings from Judicial salaries, because of vacancies, or monies that are not needed to backfill shortfill—shortfalls—in fine and fee revenues that support trial court operations.

And then the second modification would be for the Legislature to require that the Joint Legislative Budget Committee receive notification 30 days before any transfer occurs, and that that notification also include clear explanation for how that final transfer amount was determined. So, with that, we'll leave it there and happy to answer questions at the appropriate point.

Thank you so much. Henry Ng, Department of Finance.

Good afternoon. Henry Ng, Department of Finance. Um, so the intent of the minor adjustment was to restore resources to support Trial Court Operations. Uh, the courts were having to make difficult decisions and this partial restoration in the current year helped allow the courts to avoid some, some of the impacts used: court services and programs.

But we recognize some of the concerns raised in this process, and we acknowledge that Finance could have handled this in a number of different ways. But we do appreciate the Joint Legislative Budget Committee's concurrence with the, uh, partial restoration in the current year.

Uh, Finance will also like to note that the flexibility in the ongoing funding to support trial operations is intentional. Each court is different and has its own different set of needs. So, we, we support the Judicial branches and maintain that flexibility in this funding.

Uh and finally, in regards to the language to move the money from Trial Court Trust Fund to General Fund, uh, we recognize L.A.O.'s recommendation and we will take that back to Finance for consideration. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Bringing it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? Mr. Vice Chair.

Yeah, I just want to thank this branch of government for, um, pulling off miracles, in all truth. I, I think you're the most underfunded branch, and I, I think that, um, your honesty is greatly appreciated and not often acknowledged. Um, I'm, I'm very much appreciative of the fact that you guys are very transparent and you take the hits.

And I, I can't say that about every group that we oversee. And I'm very thankful for that. And, uh, my trust is very much in your corner and we need to fund you more, especially with the Prop 36 expectation, um, and not less. Especially not less.

And so hopefully, uh, we can do you right and um, improve the way we've, uh, funded this expectation of what we call justice. I hope it—that's—what it becomes. So, thank you.

Thank you so much and thank you for your testimony. As now, we'll move to Issue Three: Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.

[Roll Call for Issue 3: Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Zlatko Theodorovic, from the Judicial Council. Just a quick overview of the of the, uh, the proposal. The Governor's Budget proposed a $6.3 million General Fund in '25-'26 to support the Court—Supreme Court—Courts of Appeal, um, in their appointed council programs.

Specifically, $4.4 million is for an hourly rate increase, um, for the appointed council attorneys. And then $1.9 million for a 7% increase in the annual contracts for the project offices. I'll now turn it over to Justice Boulware Eurie to describe and discuss the criticality of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon and thank you for the attention being given to this critical issue of funding for California's appelagent—appellate—indigent defense entities.

To echo Mr. Theodorovic, and on behalf of the Judicial Council, I would like to first acknowledge and thank Governor Newsom and the Department of Finance for their understanding and support of this issue and for prioritizing the need for recruitment and retention of appellate defense counsel.

As you know and as you will hear from others, and as Director Curran referenced, the Appellate Projects and their panel of attorneys are at a crossroads today.

With a rapidly changing legal landscape, whether as a result of new regi—legislation—like the Racial Justice Act, sentencing reforms, or new laws related to juveniles, the importance of the Appellate Projects and the panel attorneys who work with them could not be more important or overstated.

The legislative priorities in the area of Criminal Law, in particular, simply will not, and cannot, come to fruition without a fully functioning panel of attorneys, supported by competitive wages.

And yet, the literal number of attorneys who represent indigent defenders—individuals—on appeal, and in capital cases, is shrinking at such an accelerated rate that Appellate Projects are facing a crisis in providing constitutionally mandated, competent representation.

And without the budget allocation identified by Governor Newsom, there will be even fewer attorneys who are able to ensure meaningful challenges and implementation of the laws passed by California's Legislature, and to provide effective legal representation.

Through the Judicial Council's Appellate Indigent Defense Oversight Advisory Committee, I have the privilege of working alongside the dedicated project directors, all of whom are here in the audience today, and meeting with them once a quarter to review a myriad of issues, including caseloads, number of available attorneys, and number of cases awaiting assignment.

And through those meetings, we know that appellants, up and down the state, are experiencing delayed access to justice because there simply are not enough attorneys to represent them. 10 years ago, there were almost 950 panel attorneys, and today, only around 600 remain.

So, there are just too few attorneys to take on the nearly 10,000 cases that our Courts of Appeal process each year. The need is desperate and quantifiable, so we are fully supportive of the funding identified in the Governor's January budget for these dedicated attorneys.

We know this is not the end of the conversation, as in future years, we will be back through the normal course of the budget process, as we strive for greater parity for the panel attorneys and the instrumental projects that oversee and support them. Again, thank you for your time.

Thank you, um, uh, Justice. Next, we'll move to Jennifer Peabody, Acting Executive Director, California Appellate Project - Los Angeles.

Good afternoon. I am Jennifer Peabody, the Acting Executive Director of the California Appellate Project in Los Angeles. Thank you for inviting me to speak today about the crisis facing our court appointing council system.

We are grateful to the Judicial Council for its support and appreciate the Governor and the Department of Finance for making the recommendation for an increase.

Unfortunately, the proposed increase is insufficient to stave off the looming constitutional crisis caused by one, the historic rise in the number of cases and two, the rapid decline in the number of attorneys willing to do this important work.

Since fiscal year 2018-2019, the number of indigent appeals statewide has risen by 27%, with nearly 10,800 appeals requiring counsel. In my district, the Second Appellate District, we've gone from appointing counsel in 2,800 cases per year to about 4,000, with an additional 1,000 clients still waiting for an attorney.

Just six years ago, there were no clients waiting. At the same time, we've seen a 30% decrease statewide in the number of attorneys accepting appointments. Many of our most experienced attorneys, some with up to 40 years of service, have retired, become ill, or passed away.

Others have left to take higher paying opportunities, either in full-time salaried positions, or other better-funded panels. Our ability to recruit new attorneys is severely hindered by the low hourly rates in our system, which hasn't kept pace with inflation, the cost of living, or student loan debt.

We cannot attract enough attorneys to replace those who are leaving, and this results in our existing attorneys being overburdened, leaving cases languishing for months.

The financial structure of the Court Appointed Counsel System is a great economic value to the state. Panel attorneys are self-employed, paid only for their time, only for the time a reasonably experienced attorney would need to handle each task under strict guidelines set by the J.C.C.

They have no paid vacations, holiday or sick days, and are not paid for rents, business—business expenses—, office equipment, or benefits packages.

The five small nonprofit Appellate Projects handle the oversight and quality control mandated by the U.S. Constitution and also train, recruit, and develop the Panel. Unlike other Justice Partners, the Project Staff Attorneys bill for their work under similarly strict guidelines, by accounting for their time in six-minute increments.

However, the pay structure of the Court Appointed Counsel System has fallen out of sync with the rest of our Justice Court partners and the courts themselves, resulting in project staff and panel attorneys leaving for better paid work.

After the 2008 Financial Crisis, other justice partners received regular increases as the cost of living increased, while the Court Appointed Counsel System was largely overlooked, becoming increasingly financially uncompetitive. The Court Appointed Counsel System has had two budget increases since 2007, for a total of 15% for the Projects and $25 an hour for the panel.

However, in the same time period, the state budget has doubled, the C.P.I. went up 60%, and our caseload skyrocketed. As a result, we are now significantly underfunded, and the system is in danger of collapse. The underfunding directly impacts our clients, denying them timely access to justice.

In my district, the number of cases needing counsel has increased by over 70%, while the panel has shrunk by 30. Clients are waiting as long as nine months for an attorney to become available to take their case.

We are still looking for attorneys for cases with Notices of Appeal filed as far back as June in Criminal Cases, August for Child Welfare Cases, and October for Juvenile Delinquency Cases.

Across the state, there are currently 2,000 cases waiting for counsel. These delays are not just inconvenient. They have profound consequences.

Children remain unnecessarily in foster care. Families are torn apart. Children who should be freed for adoption are in limbo. Juveniles are detained for too long, and individuals serve prison sentences they should not be. The state's financial cost for these delays is enormous, with each incarcerated person costing the state more than $132,000 annually.

Similarly, delayed justice creates the potential for costly litigation against the state. But more than just the financial burden, there's an immense psychological toll on those affected: families, children, and incarcerated individuals who suffer from prolonged uncertainty and unfair treatment.

That is why we are requesting the full $25 million originally proposed by the Judicial Council, which would allow for a 30% increase for the projects, and a $40 an hour raise for the panel. Without this funding, we will continue to hemorrhage staff and panel attorneys, and the number of clients waiting for council will only grow.

This funding is crucial to recruit and retain the personnel we need, to prevent the total collapse of California's court appointed counsel system and ensure that justice is not delayed for those who rely on this project. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next.

Department of Finance.

Henry Ng, Department of Finance. So we understand that there's a need to provide resources to increase the hourly rate for council at these appellate programs, and this is why we include these resources at the Governor's Budget. We recognize, though this is a modest request, but given the general state, sorry, the overall state of the General Fund, this was how much we were able to afford in the architecture of the state budget.

Thank you for that. LAO.

Anita Lee, LAO. No comments, but available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that. Bringing it back to the dais. In hearing the constraints that are there, we know that there's been in the budget a $10 figure that's talked about, but what is the component? What is it truly that we're looking for? The restoration of the 25 million or... And what would that bring you up to parity with others that are out there? And then a second question would be on how does this affect the foster care system and those that could be delayed getting services and resources they need?

We believe the full ask is what we need right now. That will bring us closer to the federal system, their panel approach, which they pay $175 an hour. There are other counties with their misdemeanor appellate panel which pay $140 an hour. So we believe with the $40 an hour raise for the panel that will bring us closer.

It will not solve the problem. It will be a nice boost. We will be able to recruit and retain more if the project's funded more and the panel attorneys are paid more. But we will not be at complete parity, and we'll also require, if we will not keep up, if we don't have an annual cost of living increase like all of our other justice partners. It'll bring us close, but without continued funding, we will continue to lag behind.

As far as the foster care system, we do represent parents and children in dependency proceedings. In Los Angeles County, we have the largest child welfare system in the State of California and in the nation. Our delays are impacting children in foster care, parents who are without their children. And we're doing the best we can to get them attorneys, but we just don't have the bodies to do the work right now.

Thank you. And could you elaborate a little bit more that you made the statement that some are serving prison sentences where they might not be if we had those resources there.

The problem is with the delay in council. Some of our clients are short termers, and while we try to prioritize their case, with the volume, it's not always possible. So by the time they get their court of appeal decisions, they will have served a prison sentence they should not have, or the length of the prison sentence should have been much shorter. Again, with the volume, we can't ensure that that's not happening, although we do try our best. But, yes, there is a possibility that people are serving time that they should not be serving at all.

Well, thank you for that and thank you for your testimony here today. As now we move on to issue four. We have Mr. Theodorovic, Director of Budget Services, Judicial Council. Tamer Ahmed, Director of Facility Services, Judicial Council. The Honorable Gus Barrera, Presiding Judge, San Joaquin Superior Court. Anita Lee, Legislative Analysis Office. Phil Osborn, Department of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start to say that the Council does appreciate the Governor and the Legislature's support of our facilities program, which has allowed the branch to build 32 courthouses, providing 354 courtrooms in 28 counties since 2002.

And during the most recent calendar year, two projects providing 23 courtrooms were completed in Riverside and Shasta counties. With respect to the issue at hand, the agenda does a good job of describing the Tracy project. And I'm going to turn it over to Judge Barrera now to talk about the critical need of this project in his county.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Ramos. My name is Gus Barrera. I am the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court. I'm here today to express my strong support on behalf of the court and the public that we serve for the San Joaquin County New Tracy Courthouse Project.

A courthouse has been absent from the City of Tracy since 2011, when it was closed at that time due to severe budget constraints and a deteriorating and uninhabitable facility. The closure of the two temporary modular courtrooms that were there in Tracy has forced the South County residents to travel to the cities of Manteca, Stockton, or Lodi to address their legal needs. This has created a significant challenge for our community, which continues to grow at an unprecedented rate.

Please keep in mind that the two courthouses previously mentioned, Manteca and Lodi, each only have two courtrooms. The City of Tracy is the largest city in our South County and now has a population of over 95,000 residents and serves the rapidly growing City of Mountain House, which has over 24,000 residents.

This growth can be attributed to Tracy's prime location bordering Alameda County, the Bay Area, and Silicon Valley, and offering a lower cost of living and more affordable housing. In 2024, South County saw over 7,000 criminal filings, many of which were complex felony cases, yet experiences a severe shortage of courtroom resources.

The proposed Tracy courthouse will be a modern, efficient, and safe two courtroom facility. This project will restore services to Tracy and ease some of the calendar congestion that we are now feeling in the Manteca and Stockton courthouses. Reopening the Tracy courthouse will allow the court to offer essential self help and other services to our growing population of South County, ensuring equitable access to justice. Our existing court facilities are experiencing severe overcrowding, which compromises the quality of services that we can provide at this time.

These facilities are incapable of physical expansion for a variety of reasons. For example, our Manteca's two courtroom facility is where a number of the Tracy cases are filed and heard. This Manteca courthouse is often overcrowded and again cannot accommodate expansion from additional courtrooms.

The holding cells there at Manteca currently do not meet current security standards, which limits the types of cases that can be heard there. Proceeding with the Tracy courthouse is the most viable solution to address these limitations. For years, state and local funding has been set aside for the Tracy courthouse, knowing that this project is critical to restore adequate, safe and efficient court services to the residents of San Joaquin County.

Redirecting the funding at this time would undermine the established prioritization methodology and delay addressing the urgent needs of our community. I urge you to proceed with the funding for the Tracy Courthouse Project as planned. This investment is critical to maintaining the integrity of our judicial system and providing the necessary infrastructure to support our community's needs. On behalf of the court and our residents, thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Now we move to Tamer Ahmed, Director of Facility Services, Judicial Court.

I have nothing to add here, Mr. Assembly Person, and I'll defer to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that. LAO.

We have no concerns with the identified scope or cost of the project, and it is next in line to be funded. However, we would note for the Committee that you might want to consider whether you would like to redirect the funding to other trial court projects. This is because all of the Tracy branch facilities have been closed since 2011 due to budget constraints from the Great Recession as well as the poor condition of the existing facilities. So approval of this project effectively means that service would be expanded back to the Tracy area.

And we absolutely recognize the benefit to that to the to the individuals who are in San Joaquin County. On the other hand, as noted on page 14 of your agenda, we have billions of dollars in unmet trial court facility construction and defer maintenance need, including in buildings that are currently in use.

And so redirecting the funding to trial court projects that are next in line to be funded or our facilities that are in use would potentially be focusing those resources in the areas where there is the greatest pressing unsafe conditions that are facing current court users and members of the public. And so that's just something that you might want to consider as you juggle your priorities and think about how to move forward. You can always come back and fund the Tracy courthouse at a later date. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Yeah. Phil Osborn, Department of Finance. I'm available to speak to any of the cap outlay proposals, but specifically like to speak to Tracy. So the Department of Finance, we support this proposal, and we see it as a redirection of existing funds more than an expansion into a new area. And just to think about it, so in 2011, you know, resources move from Tracy to Stockton. But at the time that the 2019 reassessment is done eight years later, Tracy is part of that. You know, it shows up on the assessment.

And so it's, it's, you can kind of presuppose that there was always seen as moving back to Tracy. And so if, if there was a thought that we would never move back to Tracy, that existing parcel would have been put on the surplus property list or disposed of in some other way.

And so it's, it's really more of a, they're just shifting their resources back to Tracy from Stockton. And so that, that speaks to that. And then two other quick points is that in terms of the redirection, we would not be supportive of redirecting those funds to deferred maintenance. The amount of 2.9 million is really just insufficient to really even be helpful for the existing deferred maintenance needs. And we also, when it comes to deferred maintenance, we like to do a statewide approach, multi-departmental.

So, so there's also that and then to the LAO's idea that you would redirect to either the Kern County or Tahoe facilities, we would just like to note that the Tahoe facility would need $5.3 million for the acquisition phase and the Kern County would need $5 million for the acquisition phase. So in both cases, the $2.9 million would not be sufficient to fund the acquisition phase. So we just wanted to bring that up.

And finally, if you look at the administration's five year plan, what we're showing in the out years is that what we're hoping to fund next year as long as the budget, you know, is willing is a Clear Lake Project, which is higher on the immediate and critical needs, and that's a smaller amount. It would be 1.1 million for preliminary plans, 1.6 for the working drawings. But that being said, we would prefer to spend the money on the proposed Tracy Project. So available for any questions on that.

Thank you so much for that. Bringing it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? Vice Chair.

Yeah, I don't begrudge Tracy getting this invested funding to improve their situation. But I do represent Kern County, and it's very embarrassing the situation that they are managing and their facilities. And I get that sometimes if you can knock this one out, like in Clear Lake, it's only $1 million as compared to five.

But maybe the fact the cost also shows the need, a greater need there. So I think needs should drive decision making more than just the cost. And I think our budget is big enough that we can absorb that difference. So I'm just hesitant, and I just wondered is there anything. You talked about a five year plan. I didn't hear Kern County being considered in that five year plan. Are they?

Yes. So the five year plan has Clear Lake is what we call budget year plus one, next year. Kern County would be budget year plus two. Tahoe would be budget year plus three.

That's encouraging. So gave me some sense of optimism. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments? Thank you so much for that. And we just heard on a prior panel the great need that in some of the areas. Presiding Court Judge Lisa Rogan from San Bernardino County and talked about back loss facilities. So I think the LAO does bring up a good point.

Where is the greater need here in the State of California when we hear these types of testimonies coming before us? And so when you look at those needs that are out there and looking at what the LAO has said, hopefully there's room to go back and start looking again at what the greater need is here in the State of California, especially with what we just heard from prior testimony. I would encourage that to happen.

Thank you so much for your testimony, as now we move on to panel five. Panel five, various budget proposals, including those to implement recently enacted legislation. Anita Lee, LAO. Chris Ryan, Chief of Operations, Department of Justice. Ashley Harp, Assistant Director of Fiscal Operations, Department of Justice. Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance. Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Ryan, Chief of the Division of Operations, and appreciate the opportunity to work with you today. Also wanted to say thank you to the Administration, Department of Finance, LAO, and the staff of your Committee for working with us over the last few months, and we look forward to working with you through this process. So I'm going to hand it over to Ashley for an overview of our budget, and then we're here to answer any questions you may have.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Ashley Harp, Assistant Director of Fiscal Operations with the California Department of Justice. The Governor's proposed budget for DOJ is comprised of approximately 1.3 billion, of which about 40% is General Fund and 60% special funds. The Department's special funds are a blend of fee for service, enforcement actions, and settlement funds.

The Department's 6,000 plus employees are working across the state to safeguard Californians from harm and promote community safety, preserve California's natural resources, enforce civil rights laws, and help victims of identity theft, mortgage related fraud, illegal business practices, and other consumer crimes.

The proposed budget includes 31 budget proposals totaling 122 positions and 35.6 million, of which 17 proposals totaling 24 positions and 6.3 million are related to recently enacted legislation. We appreciate the opportunity to participate today and myself and Chris Ryan, Chief of Operations, are available to answer any questions on the proposals under this item.

Thank you so much for that. Ash... No, we just went there. Mark Jimenez, Department of Finance.

Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance. No additional comments, but happy to answer questions.

Thank you. LAO.

Anita Lee with the LAO. So excluding the firearm related proposals, which you'll be talking about as part of the next issue item, there are about 20 proposals that are included as part of this particular issue item, and of them, 13 or about 60% are for implementing new legislation.

We didn't have concerns with the 13 proposals for implementing the legislation. However, we did want to flag for the Committee that five out of the 13 are to implement bills that, when they were going through the policy process, no specific fiscal impact for DOJ was actually flagged or they were keyed as non-fiscal. And so those are actually laid out on pages 20 and 21 of your agenda.

And so as you are considering this issue item, the Legislature could consider having DOJ talk about its processes and its timeframes for providing information to the Legislature when bills are going through the policy and appropriations process as well as how it aligns with then budget requests that you get as well as information that's being provided as part of the budget process.

And so based on that information, the Legislature can determine whether it finds those existing processes and timeframes sufficient to receive timely, accurate, and consistent information to inform your decision making when it's going through the policy or the budget process. So with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much for that. Bringing it back to the dais. Mr. Vice Chair.

If I could ask our DOJ folks why the head fake during the appropriations piece? And now it's going to come at a cost when it was a no cost once before, and now we'd like to have a little funding for that. It seems a little disingenuous. Maybe you can help me understand that.

Yeah. Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Appreciate the question. I think of the five bills we have here, there was kind of a variety of things that were going on internally. So I appreciate the word that you used, head fake, but I want you to know that's not the intent. There are some occasions when we report late.

We have a few bills where we've reported late because of internal processes, we don't get the review or the approval. The information may not be reported to the Appropriations Committee. Our leg staff will report or follow up with Members' offices from time to time.

There are also, there are amendments that happen on the floor from time to time, and we try to get that information if we can. We monitored or we provided assistance on over 500 bills last year. Right around 500, and we did have five that we're going to own and say look, we had a timing issue here and that we reported late. In terms of no fiscal or keyed no fiscal. Our understanding of the process is sometimes that's an internal or that's a legislative decision that's made. Okay, okay, I appreciate that.

I appreciate the clarity. And so when we are flagging these for BCPs, we're raising our hand and saying, if we're going to be, you know, directed or enabled to implement the bill, we're going to need some resources. Now, some of these are pretty minor, and I think prior to some of the fiscal pressures that we're seeing throughout the state budget, we may have been in a position where we could have absorbed these, these activities.

But with various budget reductions over the last year or two, we're raising our hand and we're saying look, we need to ask for the resources, otherwise our ability to implement these bills might be constrained. So that's what I would offer you on the question that you asked.

I appreciate that. But to me, I mean you refer to $1.2 million is what it adds up to be, and I don't consider that minor. Maybe some people would, but I think that's significant, but thank you for the explanation.

You bet. Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments?

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just want to thank you for the presentation. You know, I will partially echo what my colleague has just said. As we go through this year's appropriations process, just any further attention to detail that the Department can give. That's helpful.

I will say Mr. Lackey and I both sit on Public Safety, and I think we are both capable of carrying back to our colleagues on that policy committee that there are sometimes unintended costs that could be incurred. So just another consideration as we're passing policy out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, and of course, Mr. Chair is on the Committee, too.

There you go. That's right. Well, thank you so much for your testimony on this issue, as now we'll move to issue 6 with the inclusion of Allison Mendoza, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Firearms, Department of Justice.

So we're going to bring her up to the right side of the table and have her join us.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Allison Mendoza. I'm the Director of the Bureau of Firearms within the California Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement. I'm here today to present a summary of the firearm related budget proposals.

The Governor's Budget proposes $19.2 million in fiscal year 2025 and 2026, made up of $18.6 million general fund and $640,000 from various special funds, declining to $6.4 million ongoing, which is made up of $5.8 million General Fund and $519,000 from the fingerprint fee account in 2027 and 2028 to support DOJ firearm workload.

The proposed funding would support 11 budget proposals, including eight related to workload resulting from recently enacted legislation as summarized in today's hearing agenda.

Included in these firearm proposals are requested resources which are necessary to support critical mandated workloads such as our Firearm Clearance Section which conducts firearm eligibility background checks necessary for public safety and preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. And our carry Concealed Weapon program which has been impacted by a major decision from the United States Supreme Court and several subsequent actions in United States District Court that remain ongoing.

Additionally, the Department of Justice is requesting necessary funding and resources needed to continue the ongoing effort to modernize the Department's firearms IT systems, along with various proposals to address new or expanded workloads resulting from recent legislative changes.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these proposals with the Committee today and we're available to address any questions as needed.

Thank you so much for that. And now any, anyone else wish to add to that? No? Didn't think so.

Department of Finance.

Anthony Franzoia, Department of Finance. No additional comments and not to preempt the LAO too much, I'll just say that we're aware of the LAO's recommendations. We don't have a specific position one way or another at this time, but we're discussing internally here at Department of Finance and then with DOJ as well.

LAO?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As reflected in your agenda and as mentioned by DOJ, the Governor's Budget is proposing predominantly General Fund support for the firearm related workload. We ultimately raise no condition, no concerns with the proposals because they're generally to implement new legislation or deal with increased workload.

However, we would note that most of the General Fund costs, statutorily, could be supported by the regulatory fees deposited into the Special Fund, but these special funds, fiscally, are unable to support them for various reasons, including potential insolvency.

So a really good example of that is the DROS Special Account which is one of the more versatile of the state's special funds related to firearms that already provides tens of millions of dollars in support for this type of workload and that is expected to face potential insolvency early as 27-28 absent any action.

And so this really raises broader concerns for how this kind of workload is funded in the future, particularly what portion of workload is supported by those Special Fund regulatory fees versus the General Fund.

This is going to be important because costs in this area seem to be increasing and you have some pending cost pressures that are coming down the line.

And one of the really notable ones is that DOJ has this big IT project that's currently in process, FITSM, to replace 17 firearm and ammunition systems and databases, and that's likely to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years to complete.

And so, you know, as I mentioned previously, the state's facing multi year deficits. And so any additional ongoing General Fund is likely going to require trade offs in terms of reduced spending in other existing programs.

And so to address those broader concerns, we do recommend that the Legislature direct DOJ to provide a potential framework by January of 2026 for determining what workload should be funded by regulatory fees after it looks at its existing and current workload, its existing processes, as well as kind of existing statute and case law.

And that framework would also include specific information, including clear explanations for how specific workload would be funded, appropriate fee levels and how they're calculated, as well as any recommendations for any clarifying statutory changes, if that's needed.

The Legislature could then use that framework to inform its actions for future works, which could include aligning that workload with appropriate fund source. That could include, for example, the Legislature determining what fee levels it's comfortable with, which could be higher or lower than that which is recommended by DOJ.

To the extent the fee revenue is less than the current or projected need in terms of costs, the Legislature would also be better equipped to determine what portion of workload is shifted to the General Fund, again at the expense of other programs, or whether the workload costs could be reduced in some way to avoid the budgetary trade off, such as through statutory or other changes.

And so this recommended framework is really necessary because we haven't really been consistent in terms of how we've been funding these. So through 2018-19, the Bureau of Firearms workload has been funded through the regulatory fees and the special funds.

But since that point, despite a fee increase, a pretty sizable fee increase in 2019 solvency concerns in those special funds have led to an increasing amount of General Fund being requested and provided to support this workload. And so for 2025-26 for example, about half of the costs will be supported from the General Fund.

And so this is really, as I mentioned, led to inconsistency in how we're paying for similar or even the same type of workload. So using FITSM again, as an example, we paid for the cost in 2013-14 using the DROS Special Account, but in 2024-25 we paid for costs using the General Fund. That's the exact same program.

And so on top of this, we would also be remiss if we didn't mention that the legal landscape for what level of regulatory fee is constitutionally allowable is also very much in flux.

And so we think that this recommended framework that we're presenting to you would really help the Legislature cut through sort of the inconsistency and the uncertainty and really better equip you to move forward in the future in a more deliberative manner that's also more consistent. So happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Bringing it back to the dais. Any comments or questions?

No, I would just support that recommendation that we do exactly as outlined there. So we know exactly what these expenses are going to be, because as she's articulated, the General Fund reliability is going to be very difficult to figure out.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with that comment. I did have just one question. One of not the largest, but one of the larger pieces of the budget ask pertains to the Carry Concealed Weapon program.

I was just wondering if the Department could give us any rough update on the numbers of people that the Department is processing and is that information available on the website or publicly consumable?

Allison, you want to take that?

Sure. Yes. Thank you. So, as the BCP outlined, we have seen an increase in about 34% in initial applications and 15% in renewal applications since the Bruen decision came out in about June 2022. In August of 2024, we saw about a 300% increase in renewal applications from months earlier in that year.

And that's about two years after, again, the Bruen decision. So we're seeing those renewals, CCW licenses, most of them are effective for two years, which is why we're seeing that renewal increase at that time. And then I would just note that there are continuing court decisions that are impacting the CCW activity.

In January of this year, there was another court decision that will mandate that California accept applications from non California residents to a limited scope of people. So we'll be, essentially in April of this year, accepting applications from all the other states. And this is going to significantly impact the workload in addition to what we're already seeing.

And If I may, Mr. Chair, just one quick follow up. The budget asked the 26 positions, the $3.2 million, does that contemplate some of the anticipated changes in the law, such as this case you're referring to, that may require us to process non California residents filing for a CCW?

No, this, this proposal does not. That decision was not available at the time that this BCP was submitted. So we will have to see what the workload entails, what we're seeing, and then we'll have to come back for future year requests.

Thank you so much for that. And when the Department of Finance, you did make the statement that you are ongoing discussions with LAO on some of these components. And so we're looking forward to some of that discussion and the fruits of that coming back to this Subcommitee here in the future.

I want to thank Allison Mendoza for your testimony as now we switch out and bring up Isaac Borges.

Thank you.

Thanks, Allison.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Isaac's going to join us, but just very briefly on the budget issue before you, I just wanted to provide the information. Chris Ryan, Department of Justice. We had been allocated some money for, I think it was AB 3099 a couple of years ago. Just to give you a budget update on that.

I think we have about $3 million in the current year budget. We did a reappropriation from the year it was funded to now, this current year, rolled that money forward. So we're still spending that money down.

Last year's budget activities or development, which means this current fiscal year, I believe there was $5 million put in and that money is available until 2029. So the first bucket of money I talked about is available to the end of 2026.

So we're spending that down first and then we will, you know, continue the activities that were outlined in last year's budget and have that other bucket of money available until 2029. So just wanted to provide that from a budgetary perspective. I know Isaac's got some other program activities and policy activities he was going to share with you.

Well, thank you. But Mr. Ryan, also with AB 3099, there was a report that was supposed to come back. Can you give us a little bit more clear when that will be coming?

Yeah, Actually, I'm going to turn that to Isaac because my understanding is that there's been some activities going on there, but Isaac has the most up to date information as to where we're at on that.

[Greeting in Native Language] So good day. I'm Isaac Bojorquez. I'm the Acting Director for the Office of Native American Affairs with the California Department of Justice. Mr. Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to the hearing today. Appreciate that.

So I'm just actually going to jive right in since you brought up the remarks of the report. So currently right now Ona is still conducting its interviews with tribal communities and families and leadership to gather the diverse range of perspectives.

We've also met with Members of other states to gain their knowledge and what they are encountering in those particular areas for their communities as well in addressing MMIP within the state. We've also had regional events that raise awareness around MMIP, creating those platforms to again bring all stakeholders to the table.

As we kind of go through this and as we look at that particular study and what are the report and what you put through, what we looked at everything it pointed to that the report would be due once our study was complete. So we didn't see an actual end date for that.

It was initially thought from our office that an interim report would be due in 2025, but then through some research internally through the Department, it was discovered that the report would just be due upon that completion of the study. Therefore, our study is still ongoing.

However, we are anticipating the study to be completed by September of this year and hope to have a report here in 2026 for AB3099.

So is that a date that we could look forward to in September as far as the completion of that in 2025?

That is our targeted date, yes, to complete that report at that particular time. So we have done quite a variety of different things in that report. So we brought on some consultants to assist with that. So we have Dr. George, Blythe assisting our research team along with Dr. Cutcha Risling.

Also assisting our research team in pulling some of the historical data around tribes here in California and MMIP. We are currently also looking at contracting with UC Berkeley with the Indigenous Center of Law to assist also in the writing of the report.

When we're looking at a variety of the different generational and historical traumas that tribes have faced, as we know that these are underlining components of MMIP, we also know that there's a variety of different data inconsistencies, as I will call it.

As we looked at prior data that was coming in to our state and things that we have now, which is why our research team is really looking at trying to compile that data and get accurate data so that we can really provide a clearer picture on what the crisis is seeing.

So that way we can prepare some recommendations for some solutions as we combat that crisis.

Well, thank you for that. I know we've worked hand in hand with the Attorney General Bonta on this issue, as well as the Administration and the Legislature.

We are looking forward to having some of that data that's been collected and trying to find a date to when we could actually start to look forward to that presentation here to the Legislature.

But even before that, maybe we could get a progress update in writing to find out where we're at and some of the data that's there. There has been some things here at the state that we have moved forward in. Feather Alert is one of those, where now that's out there, an alert system.

The data collection, I know that the Department of Justice is moving forward in that direction and again, working side by side with The Attorney General, Mr. Bonta, on this issue is something that's very important to us. So we want to make sure that we're moving in the right direction getting that data.

As far as statements of not knowing when to report back to the Legislature, I think a date that was put out there in September is something that we could all agree to start to look around for that data to come forward.

Mr. Chair, we'll check with our, with our office, with our colleagues back at the office, and then we'll let you know later this week. So we'll get back to you with that information. So if that would be acceptable.

Definitely. I think it's something that we continue to work together on.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Would that conclude your testimony?

I did have a little bit here as you talk to data, in that data, I should say, that obviously Ona is working to continue its work internally with other DOJ programs and divisions and improving that reporting on crime that occurs on Indian lands.

Ona has raised concern about the lack of accurate statistical data and is actively collaborating on viable solutions.

Our research and outreach activities are focused on performance the requirements of AB3099 through a multi pronged approach that involves comprehensive data collection, in depth analysis and learning from experience and experiences, and recommendations of various stakeholders on the forefront of the crisis.

Through these efforts, we aim to build again a clear understanding of the crisis, to develop some strategies for addressing it. So just kind of wanted to reiterate that it is a complex arena to pull through the data.

And if I may speak to being indigenous myself and knowing my community, it is hard to earn the trust of our community. Law enforcement has not been good partners to our community. There's a lot of historical generational trauma that has been passed down to us when it comes from boarding schools, just to name one.

It was the local law enforcement that had to come and pull children away from its families. So to get families to open up and to share their experiences with us, to provide not only their stories, their experiences, but their DNA.

When we're talking about missing and murdered indigenous people, sometimes we know, unfortunately, we are not going to bring their loved one home safely. It might be providing that family closure, but in order to do that, we need data again from that family. And to be able to really earn that trust takes time. And so as.

As we earn that trust again within that community, to be able to do that, that does kind of delay our process as we kind of want to make sure that that data is always accurate and correct. And again, the bottom line is earning the trust of the community. And I'm honored to be able to do that work.

Thank you. Thank you for your test. Any other comments from Department of Justice?

Can I just get a clarification? Just the date that September 25th is just the completion of the research, not the final report, is that right?

Correct. Yes. So we will have our research completed and wrapped up and so we will begin all the drafting.

It is my understanding internally, as I'm new to the role of Acting Director, that that is the timeframe that we will need to go through the approval process to be able to have a report ready for you in 2026.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Department of Finance.

No additional comments.

LAO? Any further comments or questions?

No questions, Mr. Chair. I'll just say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership on this issue and of course, for the Department of Justice. Looking forward to seeing that data later this year.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for the panel bringing these much needed information forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Now we move to issue eight proposals from the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, Board of State and Community Corrections and the Office of the State Public Defender.

This issue is a non presentation item. Do any of my colleagues have any questions or comments on these proposals? You sure? No, just kidding. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. As now we'll move to public comment.

Good evening. My name is Lynelle Hee and I'm the Executive Director of Appellate Defenders. I'm here to support the budget item for the court appointed council program item number three. And I'm asking you to increase the amount to the $25 million which was originally identified by the JCC.

Our project serves the 4th Appellate District and this includes San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego and Orange County. Today we have a line of 260 clients who are waiting for an attorney to be available to take their case. 100 of those cases are directly related to the recent legislation.

We are losing panel attorneys and project attorneys at a fast clip and we do not have enough attorneys to to handle all of the cases because of the non competitive rates. We are the oldest project, the first project that started over 40 years ago and we have weathered many storms.

This is not a storm that can simply be weathered. We need the funding $25 million in order to recruit new attorneys, a new generation of attorneys and to retain the experienced staff that we have today. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening. I'm Jonathan Grossman from 6th District Appellate Program and we work with the 6th District Court of Appeal in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey counties. And so we're here about item number three, of course. Now the problem has been is that we've had two small increases over the last 17 years.

It's effectively been cut about 60% if you go by the rate of inflation minus maybe about 10% or 50% of an increase, over the last 17 years. And what has happened is in the last four or five years the caseload has gone up.

And it's not just because of new military legislation, although that's a large part of it. But every year the Legislature passes a large stack of new laws that deal with criminal juvenile justice and dependency. And those issues have to be litigated in the courts of appeal to see how they come out.

Prop 36 is going to be a great example. What happens there's no program available for someone? What happens if they're violated for not doing the programs because the program is trying to get rid of them because they have other people waiting in line? What happens if they don't have the resources? What happens if they don't have housing?

Is this a fair way to send someone to prison when they were willing to do a program but there isn't enough resources going into and part of that process is how did we deal with those appeals? But attorneys are leaving this program.

We do non capital felony and juvenile appeals because they're getting paid much better wages elsewhere, Superior courts, the Courts of Appeal, Department of Justice, wherever. And that's the DAP alone.

Over half of our staff has has left over the last 20 months and this increases the cost of trying to train people to get up to speed and give competent representation and training. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. I'm Jonathan Soglin. I'm the Executive Director of the First District Appellate Project which is based in the the Bay Area. I'm here to speak in Support of item 3. Also the funding for the Appellate court appointed council system. We're grateful to the Governor and the support of the judiciary to even be on the agenda.

But again we do need the full funding that was originally proposed by the Judicial Council. The $25 million, not the $6.25 million. The $6.25 million does not solve the problem. It's not going to make a bit of difference.

When we see the departures from our panel and how much more people are making as a panel attorney doing other work in the state, doing it for the feds or attorneys leaving our offices. In 2024 alone our office has 13 staff attorneys. Five left in 2024. We couldn't immediately fill those positions.

We used to get as many applications as we could ever review. We now get strips and drabs. People can't afford to work for us. Same thing with the panel. Our panel is paid at the top rate, the very top rate, $130 an hour. The low rate is 110.

The $130 an hour is for doing life without parole cases. That same attorney can go to Alameda County, San Francisco and other counties and do a misdemeanor appeal and already be paid more, $147 an hour. So we're really far far off and we need that additional money. It's a constitutional crisis. It's an access to justice issue.

We're not even here talking about what we might need when Prop 36 hits the Appellate courts. We're talking about the basics keeping us our clients served with attorneys getting attorneys when they have an appeal. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. Cindi Mishkin, Assistant Director of Appellate Defenders Incorporated serving the Fourth District Court of Appeal appointing counsel program attorneys in cases from San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Orange County and Imperial Counties. I'm grateful to be here today. Thank you for having this matter on the program.

But I am here to join the chorus of people talking about how the program is not enough. The money recommended the $6.5 million is not enough to support the program at this time after years of neglect of the program.

As you heard, there's a number of cases have risen and the number of attorneys to handle the cases have lowered.

We recruit and train attorneys and we have been able to recruit and train some attorneys to join the panel now, but it takes three to five years to train these attorneys up to join the panel as an independent attorney.

And so therefore the attorneys we recruit now won't be available online to take the cases that are building up in the backlog for until 2027 or 2029. And with so even providing the money now, we're going to wait her time to replenish the panel.

So I encourage the Committee to reconsider the amount to recommend and to recommend the full amount requested initially the $25 million. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. And please, there's a minute allocated for time.

I'll be brief. I am Scott Cameron. I am a court appointed appellate attorney. I'm one of the attorneys that's seeking a $40 an hour raise. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. I want to let you know I've been an appellate attorney on the California panel for 17 years. I've had two raises.

Also you spoke, Mr. Chairman, directly to your question about parity. I am also on the federal panel where I take court appointed cases through the Federal Government for the 9th Circuit.

I make $45 an hour more on that federal panel and when I'm offered one of those cases, I obviously take it and then I start turning down the cases from these project managers that you're hearing. So I and I really want to do the state cases. So I'm hoping for parity that you talked about.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

I'm Ray LeBov. I represent California Appellate Defense Council which is the membership organization for the panel attorneys most, most of whom represent most of the panel attorneys that are at issue here.

And we just, I'm just going to reinforce that we are in a crisis right now that affects the ability of get getting attorneys to represent clients affects recruitment and retention. It also affects the ability to implement the progressive criminal justice reforms that the Legislature has recently adopted.

And also appellate Court of Appeal justices have shared with us that in order for them to do their job in the way that they feel would be appropriate for them to do it, they need to have a panel that is qualified and not be losing all the qualified attorneys that are leaving because of that.

We want to thank the Judicial Council for its proposal and the Governor and the Administration and the Department of Finance for its support and for both of the subcommittees that have addressed this so far, we're very appreciative of that.

And also I should say additionally, not just the attorneys, but also the projects are in dire need of adequate funding. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union - Local 148, Initiate Justice, Law DEFENSA and Debt Free Justice California. Commenting on issue number one, we know Californians want to live in safe and healthy communities and so as the Legislature considers how to fund the implementation of Prop 36, we really urge you to consider funding proven solutions to addressing homelessness, drug addiction and theft. Through things like housing, evidence based treatment and supportive services and not in ways that are going to further mass incarceration which has been proven to only worsen these cycles rather than to improve them.

Thank you.

thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon. John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute here on behalf of both the Institute and the California Behavioral Health Association, on item number one. Appreciate the Committee's robust discussion on Prop 36.

As behavioral health advocates, we're deeply concerned about the ability to properly implement Prop 36, given the existing shortage of substance use treatment service capacity. Which I believe multiple folks on the panel has mentioned today, we would encourage the Committee to target props 36 implementation funds towards substance use treatment services and to ensure that any new dollars are accompanied by a spending transparency and outcome reporting framework. So we can properly assess the impact and effectiveness of Prop 36 implementation. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, on item one. We submitted a letter from more than 100 organizations urging that Prop 36 implementation focus on substance use treatment and also we urge you to consider the comments of Rick Owen from the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code of the need to fund public defenders to implement Prop 36.

Public defenders are the people who can help get their clients into treatment. On item number three, we support full funding for the Court of Appeal, appointed panel program at $25 million. Imagine what it would be like if you were wrongfully convicted and sitting in prison and you didn't have a lawyer to help you.

We cannot close the courthouse doors to all but the wealthy. We urge you to fund public defense.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Chair Member. Sandra Barrera on behalf of SEIU California commenting on issue number two. We support the $42 million restoration and ongoing $40 million. However, courts should be required to use these funds to restore a proportionate amount of furlough days or laid off positions.

And the courts haven't given our Members any indication that they plan to do so. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good afternoon, Claudia Gonzalez, senior program associate at Viera California commenting on issue number one. California has voted for Property six because we wanted to live in safe, thriving communities. And I want to urge the Legislature to follow the evidence and make sure that funds for the implementation of Prop 36 delivery the safety we deserve.

The Legislature should channel resources toward more programs proven to reduce crime, not just more use of prisons or jails. Programs like behavioral health, job training and housing deliver safety.

Californians who participate, we know for a fact in These programs are 15% less likely, more likely to stay home as opposed to folks who go to state prison, are three times more likely to go back. And I know this for a fact.

I am a formerly incarcerated Native American who had benefited from these services and it is the reason why I am here today. And so again, voters believe that Prop 36 would provide more of these services, not less.

And so we really want to urge the Legislature that they listen to voters and champion for policies that create lasting safety. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus for the California Public Defender's Office. On item number one, we hope that this Committee will support our budget request for public defenders offices to hire social workers to support their clients in specialized courts and treatment and to move out of the criminal legal system. On the panel today, Mr.

Owen noted that one possible solution was to Fund public defenders with social workers who could assist with getting clients treatment services and housing. We agree on item number three. We support the proposed increased hourly rate increase of $10 for the appellate council.

And lastly, on behalf of the Brady campaign, speaking in support of item number six to Fund the Department of Justice's gun violence prevention programs. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Hi, my name is Kareem Baker and I'm speaking on behalf of the item 3, the court appointed council. I've been on several panels practicing for 10 years. I'm grateful that you're talking about this 10 percentage $10 an hour increase.

But I'm asking for the $40 increase and the 30% increase in the panels and how you're talking about these things like retention and how there's other options. I can even speak for myself where in one panel I'm getting paid like for misdemeanors like 150 and I mean 115 and then to do panel work, it's 120.

And then it's kind of like with this panel work, especially with these new sentencing laws where it incorporates your knowledge of dependency, your knowledge of juvenile. When you're talking about someone re sentencing somebody who's been in there for 20 years and it's like, okay, what's their whole history and understanding and having to explain that?

Or I could just do this DUI miss though and get paid this. And it affects what cases you take, how you work. Because what's the incentive to go through all this when I could just do a DUI and get paid comparable? And then as far as that's just retention.

And I'm seeing people in my experience going back to the PD's office or wherever, but also in recruitment. You're talking about a three to five, how she was saying three to five years to get to, to become from an assistant to independent.

But what's the point of doing all that when, zero, I could just get paid 120147 to do these misdoes or to do something else? And what's the incentive to start out as an assistant, go all these years? Or if I'm going to go that type of route, it's much more to go to the federal court.

It's incentivized, where if I'm going to go through all that, I'm going to get 175 hourly. And we don't have those other benefits. So this is a real calculation. You have to beyond the need, the needs of justice. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good evening. Josh Gauger. On behalf of the chief probation officers of California. On issue one, we want to highlight that Proposition 36 will require critical investments to enable probation to support the courts in utilizing the tools provided under the initiative.

To implement the initiative successfully, county probation departments are requesting resources to support the courts and provide individual assessments, to identify treatment options and to oversee accountability measures and supervise an expanded caseload.

We are a strong supporter of drug court models, but want to make it clear that if similar models are used for Proposition 36, whether they are on formal probation or not, they may rely on probation for the monitoring and court coordination elements. As mentioned today, probation is a key element of the success of the collaborative court models.

So many courts will feel like they can't replicate the program for this population and expect the same results without probation's involvement. Without proper funding for probation's role, the process will either lack accountability or result in increased failures and additional and unnecessary incarceration. We look forward to collaborating as the Legislature deliberates on how best to implement Proposition 36.

Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Wilder Lee. I'm here on support of item three. I'm on the court of Appeals panel. I have been suspended 1998. What this Committee hasn't heard is that the Superior Court conflicts panels are having difficulty finding people at even the higher rates that they pay.

I get emails recruiting me because I, you know, the experience I have to come, come and work for the other counties. I can easily give myself a raise by doing that. A $10 hour raise doesn't change the calculus of $40 an hour raise does. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Good afternoon. Saul Wallach. I'm here to comment on item three. I am a, I have been a panel Member. I have been doing court appointed panel work for 32 years. The last 22 years it's all I've done.

I've been working out of my home and I think my situation is similar to a lot of panel lawyers who also work out of their home in that, you know, I enjoy the work and I've been able to make a go of it by being very frugal and not spent.

I don't have any luxurious vacations or fancy cars. But at the same time, in 32 years costs have gone up substantially and now I'm getting into, I'm in my 50s and health care. Health insurance becomes outlandishly expensive at that age and I have a son in college. That's expensive and I think I plan to stick it out.

But a lot of people in my situation are leaving and it's for the reasons that I've just described. It's just the costs become too much and the payment is simply not competitive with other public sector jobs like public defender's offices.

So we're losing people to those jobs and at the same time we're not getting new blood to replace them. I would urge the Legislature to support the $40 an hour raise.

Thank you for your comments.

Good afternoon, I'm Hassan Gorgonpour, also speaking in support of item number three, thanking the Governor for the $10 raise that's proposed there, but really asking you all to consider the higher amount that was recommended by the Judicial Council. I just want to say I think I am an example of the problem here.

I spent seven years as a panel attorney. I learned two things immediately. One is that it was important, complicated work and two is that it was going to be very hard to hang on long term to make student loan payments to buy a home at the rates that were offered there. I then moved.

I spent a year and a half as a Staff Attorney at one of the projects. It was better, but still it was not competitive with other avenues to do this work. I ended up leaving.

So to resolve some of those issues to show the value of the work, I would just ask you all to consider the higher amount.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Good early evening Assembly Members. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm Director of Government affairs at ACLU California Action and I'm speaking regarding item number one. Just wanting to urge the Legislature to invest in indigent defense providers across California in implementing holistic defense services.

Now more than ever, California must ensure that people have equal access to justice and drug treatment, regardless of how much money they have in their pockets.

Indigent defense providers are uniquely positioned to effectively combat recidivism and connect Californians who earn low incomes to resources to address poverty, trauma, houselessness, mental illness, substance use, because they connect with them when they first enter the criminal legal system. I'm repeating what others have said with the goal of underlining, underlining, underlining. This funding is critical.

In the wake of Prop 36 and a call to action for California policymakers, you to redouble efforts to deliver on our nation's founding principle of equal treatment under the law for all, not just for those who have the money to afford it.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your comments.

My name is Caitlin Christian, also commenting on item number three and encouraging the Committee to adopt the full 25 $1.0 million allotment. I've been serving as a panel attorney, court appointed appellate counsel for 15 years and I'm really lucky that I've been able to do so.

But I have a life that's afforded me the infrastructure to do that.

And, and so what I'm hoping to provide the Committee with is some context that my skills in the private sector are billed 2.5 times higher than they are as court appointed counsel and that if you look at our hourly wage, it has to be divided in 31/3 goes to taxes, one third goes to retirement and insurance, and the remaining third is for the rest of life which includes everything, food, childcare, a college account, anything that you want to commit your life to.

And while $10 is much appreciated, it won't make a dent in the project's ability to recruit and retain the talented counsel that our clients deserve. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Good afternoon, my name is Lauren Dodge. I am here also speaking on Item number three. I am a former Staff Attorney at the First District Appellate Project. Prior to that I was a Member of the panel and and had a practice exclusively devoted to indigent appeals.

I left the project a year ago, about a year ago, because I could not afford to stay. I joined a public defender office in the Bay Area. I am doing equivalent work. I am now making 70% more than I made at the Appellate Project and more than 100% more than I made when I was on the panel.