The 2019-20 Budget: Reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice

The 2019-20 Budget: Reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST APRIL 10, 2019 Summary As part of his budget plan for 2019-20, the Governor proposes removing the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and making it a separate department under the Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency. According to the Governor, this reorganization would improve the delivery of services youth need in order to be successful when they are released into the community. While the administration has not provided any additional details about the proposal at this time, it intends to introduce budget trailer legislation related to the reorganization as part of the 2019-20 budget process. As the Governor develops his proposed reorganization of DJJ and provides additional detail going forward, it will be important for the Legislature to consider several key questions and weigh the relative trade-offs of such a change, including whether the change would achieve the benefits specified in statute related to executive reorganizations (such as reduced expenditures and increased efficiency). In order to assist the Legislature, we identify several key questions that merit legislative consideration. These questions include: • Does DJJ Need to Be Reorganized to Improve Rehabilitation? Currently, it is unclear what specific barriers to rehabilitation currently exist, what specific outcome target the administration is seeking to achieve, and how DJJ is currently performing. • What Are Potential Benefits of the Proposed Reorganization? The reorganization could potentially result in certain benefits, such as improved rehabilitation and reduced costs for the state. However, the Governor has not provided specific information on the extent to which the reorganization would accomplish these benefits or why they could not be pursued with DJJ’s current organizational structure. • What Are Potential Consequences of the Proposed Reorganization? The reorganization may not result in improved outcomes, could increase costs, and could result in unintended consequences such as complicating coordination with CDCR. • Are There Alternative Organizational Options Available? The Legislature will want to consider what other options are available to adjust the organizational structure of the state’s juvenile justice system, including trends in how other states have organized their juvenile justice systems. • Should the Reorganization of DJJ Be Done Through Budget Trailer Legislation? The administration has not provided a rationale why the proposed reorganization should be done with budget trailer legislation rather than going through the executive branch reorganization process established in statute. analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET INTRODUCTION The DJJ within CDCR is responsible for housing adjustments to reflect the proposed reorganization. juvenile offenders committed to state facilities. As However, the administration reports that it intends part of his budget plan for 2019-20, the Governor to introduce budget trailer legislation related to proposes removing DJJ from CDCR and making the reorganization as part of the 2019-20 budget it a separate department under HHS Agency. process. According to the Governor, this reorganization In this report, we (1) provide an overview of would improve the delivery of services youth need California’s juvenile justice system including DJJ in order to be successful when they are released and (2) highlight several key questions raised by the into the community. At the time of this analysis, Governor’s proposal for the Legislature to consider the administration had not provided any additional as the administration provides more detailed details about the proposal and the Governor’s information on the proposal in the coming months. budget for 2019-20 does not include any BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA’S Juvenile Court Youth JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM All youths who are accused of a crime that occurred before they turn 18 years of age and When a youth is arrested by a local law are required to appear in court start in juvenile enforcement agency in California, there are courts. Juvenile court proceedings are different various outcomes that can occur depending on than proceedings in adult court. For example, if the circumstances of the alleged offense and the the court determines the youth committed the criminal history of the youth. For example, arresting crime he or she is accused of, the juvenile court officers could choose to turn youths over to judge does not sentence a youth to a set term their guardians or refer them to county probation in prison or jail. Instead, the judge declares the departments, which are primarily responsible for youth a “ward of the court” and determines the youth in the criminal justice system. (Probation appropriate placement based on statute, input departments also receive referrals from non-law from defense and prosecution, and factors such as enforcement sources—such as schools and the youth’s offense and criminal history. The youth parents.) The probation department generally has then remains in the placement for a period of time the discretion to refer the case to juvenile court, based on various factors, such as program length, place the juvenile into a voluntary diversion program the youth’s age, or a determination that the youth is (such as community-based programs designed to ready for reentry into the community. modify behaviors while redirecting youth away from Counties Responsible for Most Juvenile Court formal involvement with the criminal justice system), Youth. Counties are generally responsible for or take other actions. If a probation department youth placed by juvenile courts. These youth are chooses to refer the case to juvenile court, the typically allowed to remain with their families with youth will receive a court date. Depending on some level of supervision from county probation the circumstances of the case, the juvenile court departments. However, some are placed elsewhere, judge could take several possible actions including such as in county-run juvenile halls or camps. Due placing the youth under county or state supervision to several pieces of legislation enacted over the or—in certain circumstances—transferring the case years that increased county-level responsibility to adult court. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET for youth offenders, the portion Figure 1 of youth supervised by counties Proportion of Youth Supervised by Counties Has has increased significantly, as Increased Since 1996 as Overall Population Declined shown in Figure 1. (We provide an overview of major policy changes that contributed to 1996 2017 this shift in the box on the next page). We note that the overall State 13% population of youth involved in the criminal justice system declined State Counties dramatically over these years due 48% 52% to a significant decrease in the Counties juvenile arrest rate. There is no 87% consensus among researchers as to why juvenile arrest rates have declined. Accordingly, while 20,409 Youth 4,846 Youth counties are responsible for a greater portion of youth, the size of the populations they are responsible for has declined. further restricted the types of youth who can be State Responsible for Most transferred to adult court to only those who are age Serious Juvenile Court Youth. If a juvenile 16 or older. (We note that a court recently issued a court judge finds that a youth committed certain temporary stay on Chapter 1012 while it determines significant crimes listed in statute (such as murder, whether the measure makes an allowable change robbery, and certain sex offenses), the judge can to Proposition 57.) place the youth in state juvenile facilities operated by DJJ. Very few youths are placed in DJJ by the Some Adult Court Youth Housed in DJJ. juvenile courts. For example, only 224 youths Under state and federal law, youth must generally were sent to DJJ by juvenile courts in 2017— be kept separate from adult offenders. As a result, less than 1 percent of the youth placed by juvenile youth tried as adults in California are often housed courts. As of December 2018, DJJ housed about at DJJ until they turn 18. In addition, DJJ recently 623 juvenile court youths. established the Young Adult Offender pilot program to allow certain youth convicted between age Adult Court Youth 18 and 21 in adult court to be housed in DJJ if Some Youth Tried in Adult Court. All youth they are able to complete their sentences prior to start in juvenile court but judges can send turning age 25. As of December 2018, DJJ housed certain youth to adult court. Unlike juvenile court, 38 individuals who were tried in adult court. individuals tried in adult court can be convicted and sentenced to a jail or prison term. Recent OVERVIEW OF DJJ policy changes have placed restrictions on the circumstances in which a youth could be tried as an As previously mentioned, DJJ is currently adult. For example, Proposition 57 (2016) restricted a division within CDCR. The 2018-19 budget the type of youth who could be tried as adults to provided a total of $198.5 million (primarily from only those who commit a felony when they were the General Fund) for DJJ—an average of roughly age 16 or 17 or commit certain significant crimes $300,000 per youth. (The amount includes listed in state law (such as murder, robbery, and $20 million in Proposition 98 [1988] funds to certain sex offenses) when they were age 14 or 15. support various educational services provided to In addition, Chapter 1012 of 2018 (SB 1391, Lara) DJJ wards.) As of December 2018, DJJ housed a www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET total of about 660 wards—both juvenile and adult rape. The administration projects that the average court youth—in three facilities (two in Stockton daily DJJ population will increase to 760 wards and one in Ventura) and one camp (Pine Grove). during 2019-20, primarily due to the policy changes The youngest individuals were 15 years of age limiting which youth can be tried in adult court and and the average age was about 19 years old. The the Young Adult Offender pilot program discussed vast majority of wards were committed for violent above. The 2018-19 budget authorized a staffing offenses such as homicide, robbery, assault, or level of 1,035 employees. Various Legislation Increased Role of Counties in Juvenile Justice System Over the last two decades, the Legislature has taken steps to shift key responsibilities for managing youth offenders to the counties. Increased Flat Fee and Established Sliding Scale Fee—Chapter 6 of 1996 (SB 681, Hurtt). Prior to Chapter 6, the state charged counties a flat monthly fee of $25 for each ward housed in state facilities. Chapter 6 required counties to begin paying a sliding scale fee based on the offense committed by the ward. The scale was designed to incentivize counties to keep low-level offenders at the county level by requiring counties to pay more to house less serious offenders with the state. Counties would pay a flat fee of $150 per month for the most serious offenders. For wards adjudicated for less serious offenses, counties would pay a higher rate of 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 percent of the state’s institutional cost for housing the ward— with the percentage increasing as the committing offenses decreased in severity. While the institutional costs varied over time, the fees assessed through the sliding scale were generally several thousand dollars per year. During the ten years following the implementation of the sliding scale fee, the average daily juvenile population in state facilities declined by about 80 percent while the population in county facilities remained relatively constant. This increased the share of juveniles supervised by counties, suggesting that the sliding scale could have been effective at incentivizing counties to keep low level offenders at the county level. (We note that the sliding scale became less relevant after the policy changes described below and was replaced by a flat fee in 2012.) Limited Admission to State Juvenile Facilities—Chapter 175 of 2007 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). Senate Bill 81 restricted the type of wards who could be housed in the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to only those who committed certain significant crimes listed in statute (such as murder, robbery, and certain sex offenses)—effectively increasing the responsibility of counties. To help the counties manage these new responsibilities, SB 81 also established the Youthful Offender Block Grant (YOBG), which currently provides about $180 million in state funds annually to counties for costs associated with supervising youth that might otherwise have been placed under state supervision. Senate Bill 81 also provided counties with $100 million in lease-revenue funding on a one-time basis to construct or renovate juvenile facilities, which later increased to $300 million. Realigned Community Supervision to Counties—Chapter 729 of 2010 (AB 1628, Committee on Budget). As part of the 2010-11 budget package, the Legislature realigned from the state to county probation departments full responsibility for providing community supervision to all wards released from DJJ, as well as housing those wards who violate the terms of their supervision. The Legislature also established the Juvenile Reentry Grant, which currently provides about $10 million annually to counties for these responsibilities. The funds are distributed across counties based on the number of wards supervised in the community or placed in a local juvenile facility due to violating the terms of court-ordered supervision. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET Farrell Lawsuit Prompted Significant The major organizational changes in juvenile justice Changes in DJJ Treatment and responsibilities include: Services • 1961—Establishment of Youth and Adult Corrections Agency. CYA and the In 2003, a lawsuit, Farrell v. Allen, was filed Department of Corrections (CDC) were moved against the state, alleging that it failed to provide under the jurisdiction of a new Youth and adequate care and effective treatment programs to Adult Corrections Agency. This was part youths housed in DJJ. In 2004, the state entered of a larger plan to organize various state into a consent decree in the Farrell case and departments under eight different agencies. agreed to develop and implement six remedial The intent was to modernize and streamline plans related to safety and welfare, mental health, the administration to establish clearer lines of education, sexual behavior treatment, health care, responsibility and improve executive control dental services, and youth with disabilities. The over the various segments of the executive overarching goal of these plans was to move DJJ branch. However, the Governor stated at the toward adopting a “rehabilitative model” of care time that there was no intent to make changes and treatment. This included the implementation of to the internal operations of the departments the Integrated Behavioral Treatment Model (IBTM), as part of these reorganizations. which is designed to provide a comprehensive approach to assessing and treating youth while also • 1969—Juvenile Justice Moved Under reducing the likelihood of institutional violence and Human Relations Agency. CYA and CDC— future criminal behavior. We note that adopting the along with ten other state departments—were various remedial plans substantially increased per moved under the Human Relations Agency capita costs within DJJ. (a predecessor to the current HHS Agency). The reorganization was intended to eliminate In February 2016, the lawsuit was terminated duplication and improve collaboration. The after the court overseeing the case found that DJJ administration’s rationale for moving CYA and had sufficiently complied with the requirements of CDC into the Human Relations Agency was the remedial plans. This released DJJ from court that the departments shared the agency’s goal oversight and gave it greater flexibility in determining of helping individuals achieve self-sufficiency. how to house and treat youth. However, we note that DJJ has generally continued the plans • 1980—Establishment of Youth and Adult implemented under the lawsuit including the IBTM. Correctional Agency. CYA and CDC were moved under a new Youth and Adult State Juvenile Justice Responsibilities Correctional Agency. The administration’s Have Been Reorganized Several Times rationale at the time was that this would help provide consistent and coordinated policy Prior to DJJ becoming a division of CDCR in regarding institutional needs, programs, and 2005, the state’s juvenile justice responsibilities legislation for both adult and juvenile offenders. were organized in different ways over the years. • 2005—Establishment of CDCR and DJJ. The state first established a separate department The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency was known as the California Youth Authority (CYA) reorganized into one department—CDCR. in 1953. As we discuss below, CYA was Under this model, CYA became a division— subsequently reorganized on several occasions. DJJ—within CDCR. The rationale for the These reorganizations were pursued through the reorganization included strengthening the executive branch reorganization process that is set chain of command, increasing the focus on in statute and intended to achieve various goals, performance assessment and rehabilitation, such as reduce expenditures, increase efficiency, and improving efficiency by centralizing shared and eliminate duplications of effort. (We describe services between the juvenile and adult this process in more detail in the box on page 6.) systems. www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL As part of his budget plan for 2019-20, the proposal and the Governor’s budget for 2019-20 Governor has proposed removing DJJ from CDCR does not include any adjustments to reflect the and making it a separate department under the proposed reorganization. The administration HHS Agency. According to the Governor, this intends to introduce budget trailer legislation reorganization is intended to improve the delivery of related to the reorganization as part of the services youth need in order to be successful when 2019-20 budget process rather than going through they are released into the community. The Secretary the executive branch reorganization process. (We of the HHS Agency has about 360 employees note that the Governor’s budget also proposes to and an annual budget of about $470 million. The create a new mentorship program to increase the agency oversees 12 departments and 4 offices with number of former DJJ wards who receive honorable a total of 30,000 employees. discharge, which we discuss in our recent report At the time of this analysis, the administration The 2019-20 Budget: Analysis of Governor’s had not provided any additional details about the Criminal Justice Proposals.) Executive Branch Reorganization Process The Legislature granted the Governor the authority to reorganize functions among executive officers and agencies through the executive branch reorganization process. In establishing this process, the Legislature stated that the Governor should examine the organization of executive branch agencies to determine if changes are necessary to accomplish one or more broad purposes, such as to reduce expenditures, increase efficiency, or eliminate duplications of effort. Below, we describe the steps required in the reorganization process. • Before initiating the reorganization process, the Governor must give a copy of the reorganization plan to Legislative Counsel for statutory drafting so that it reflects the form and language suitable for enactment in statute and to ensure that the plan clearly and specifically expresses its nature and purpose. • At least 30 days before submitting a reorganization plan to the Legislature, the Governor must submit the plan to the Little Hoover Commission—an independent state oversight agency tasked with reviewing and making recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on state operations and any proposed government reorganization plan. • Once the Governor submits the plan to the Legislature, (1) the Little Hoover Commission has 30 days to issue a report reviewing the plan and (2) the Legislature has 60 days to consider the proposal. Upon receipt, the plan is referred to policy committees of each house. The committees study and report on the plan no later than ten days prior to the end of 60-day period. Either house can reject the proposal by majority vote—but not until its policy committee has issued a report or the report’s deadline has passed. • If neither house rejects the reorganization plan during the 60-day period, it goes into effect on the 61st day. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL RAISES SEVERAL KEY QUESTIONS As the Governor develops his proposed Intended Outcome Target Not Specified. In reorganization of DJJ and provides additional addition, the administration has not identified a detail going forward, it will be important for the specific target or outcome measure that the state Legislature to consider several key questions and should achieve regarding its juvenile justice system. weigh the relative trade-offs of such a change, Without such a specific target, it is not clear what including whether the change would achieve the level of improvement (if any) is necessary. We note benefits specified in statute related to executive that one of the primary ways to measure successful reorganizations (such as reduced expenditures, reentry to the community is recidivism—the number increased efficiency, and elimination of duplication of individuals who reoffend after release. DJJ of effort). In order to assist the Legislature, we currently measures recidivism as the percentage identify several key questions that merit legislative of youth who are convicted of a new offense within consideration. These questions are summarized in three years of their release from state supervision. Figure 2 and discussed in more detail below. DJJ’s most recent outcome evaluation report identifies a recidivism rate of 54 percent for youth Does DJJ Need to Be Reorganized to released from its facilities in 2011-12. Improve Rehabilitation? While reducing recidivism could be a reasonable goal for the administration, it is not immediately When assessing the merits of the Governor’s clear what an appropriate target for the recidivism proposal, the Legislature should consider whether rate should be. For example, while one potential the proposed reorganization of DJJ is necessary target could be based on the recidivism rates of to accomplish its stated goal of enabling the state other juvenile justice systems (such as in other to better provide youth offenders with the services states), we find that such a target is potentially they need to be successful when they are released problematic for a couple reasons. First, DJJ from state supervision. As we discuss below, it has a specific role of only housing youth who is unclear what specific barriers to rehabilitation have committed certain significant offenses and/ currently exist and what specific outcome target the or were convicted in adult court. Accordingly, administration is seeking to achieve. comparing DJJ’s recidivism rate to other juvenile Barriers to Rehabilitation Unclear. At the justice systems that house a wider range of youth time of this analysis, the administration had not would not be a fair comparison. Second, other provided any information identifying the specific barriers that it believes prevent DJJ from ensuring that youth Figure 2 offenders are successful upon Key Questions for Legislative Consideration release to the community. Moreover, the administration has not provided any information on 9 Does the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) need to be reorganized to how the current organizational improve rehabilitation? structure of DJJ is related to these 9 barriers. As such, it is not clear What are potential benefits of the proposed reorganization? 9 whether the Governor’s proposed What are potential consequences of the proposed reorganization? reorganization of DJJ would 9 Are there alternative organizational options available? actually achieve its intended goal 9 and whether it is the most efficient Should the reorganization of DJJ be done through budget trailer legislation? and effective option for doing so. www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET systems may measure recidivism differently than In contrast, several of the departments within DJJ. For example, some systems use definitions the HHS Agency share DJJ’s goals of rehabilitation of recidivism that are based on reoffending within without including a goal of punishment. For a different length of time than the three years example, individuals who have been convicted of measured by DJJ. In addition, other systems may a violent offense connected to their severe mental base their recidivism rate on different outcomes disorder can be committed to the Department than DJJ, such as counting youth who are of State Hospitals (DSH) as Mentally Disordered rearrested but not convicted. Offenders (MDOs) after they complete their prison terms if they have been found to pose a danger to Effects of Recent Efforts to Improve the public. DSH provides treatment to MDOs until Rehabilitation Unclear. We also note that there it is determined that they are no longer a threat to is limited data available on DJJ’s recidivism public safety. DSH also provides treatment to other rate. As indicated above, more than half of the individuals involved in the criminal justice system. youth released from DJJ facilities in 2011-12 In addition, the Department of Health Care Services were convicted of new crimes within three years. (DHCS) and the Department of Social Service However, this cohort was released roughly four (DSS) (in collaboration with their county-level years before the Farrell case was terminated in counterparts) are involved in the provision of February 2016, when the court found DJJ had services to youth in foster care who have somewhat made sufficient progress toward improving its similar needs to youth involved in the juvenile approach to rehabilitation. Accordingly, these youth justice system. Specifically, both populations would not have benefited from any improvements have higher rates of diagnosed mental health and in DJJ’s rehabilitative programs that occurred in substance use disorders than the broader youth those four years. At the time of this analysis, DJJ population. As such, the HHS Agency could be well had not released recidivism data for youth released positioned to oversee the delivery and improvement more recently. Thus, the actual effects the changes of services for the DJJ population. made in response to the Farrell case have had on recidivism remain unclear. Possible Opportunities for Early Intervention. It is possible that the HHS Agency would be What Are Potential Benefits of the better positioned than CDCR to pursue early Proposed Reorganization? intervention strategies with at-risk youth. This is because many youth who end up in the juvenile While the need for the Governor’s proposed justice system have prior contact with services reorganization of DJJ remains unclear, we find that provided by HHS departments or their county-level it could potentially result in certain benefits, such as counterparts. For example, research shows that a improved rehabilitation. We discuss these potential history of interactions with a child welfare agency benefits below. is a significant risk factor for ending up in the juvenile justice system. Specifically, a 2015 study Potentially Greater Coordination of DJJ’s found that over 80 percent of probation youth in Goals. The purpose of DJJ as established Los Angeles County had been referred to child in statute is to improve public safety through protective services at least once for maltreatment education, treatment, and rehabilitative services while about 40 percent had a substantiated report provided to youth. While the other divisions of maltreatment. We also note that DSS provides of CDCR share the goals of rehabilitation, some oversight and technical assistance to adult sentences are also intended to serve as county-level child protective services agencies— punishment. Accordingly, it is possible that the including assistance facilitating the establishment adult system’s goal of punishment could influence of new programs. In theory, this could include the way CDCR operates DJJ. In turn, this could facilitating the development of early intervention potentially limit the effectiveness of DJJ programs. programs. That being said, the administration However, the administration has not provided has not provided any specific information on information that this is the case. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET the manner or extent to which the proposed What Are Potential Consequences of reorganization would include early intervention the Proposed Reorganization? efforts or why such efforts could not be pursued In addition to weighing the potential benefits with DJJ’s current organizational structure. of the proposed reorganization, the Legislature Possible Improvements in Reentry Service will want to consider its potential consequences. Coordination. The Governor’s proposal could These include the possibility that the reorganization also potentially improve coordination of services may not result in improved outcomes and could for youth released from DJJ to county probation. increase state costs. Given the complexities of the While CDCR coordinates with county probation issues involved in a government reorganization, departments who typically supervise youth released the proposal could also result in unintended from DJJ facilities, HHS departments have more consequences that merit consideration. In involvement with the county agencies that provide particular, as we discuss below, the proposed services that may benefit youth released from DJJ. reorganization of DJJ could complicate For example, DHCS is responsible for providing coordination with CDCR and potentially disrupt oversight and technical assistance to counties in existing services for youth offenders. their provision of mental health and substance use May Not Result in Improved Outcomes. disorder treatment services. While the Governor’s proposal would elevate In addition, the HHS Agency is currently DJJ to departmental status, it is unclear what taking steps to improve coordination between the implications would be in terms of the level of departments to improve services for youth. For support and oversight provided by the HHS Agency example, DHCS and DSS are currently working on relative to the current support and oversight ways to improve access to mental health services provided by CDCR. For example, it is possible that for youth in the foster care system. This work the HHS Agency might take a more active role could be expanded to increase access for youth in monitoring the implementation of rehabilitative released from DJJ. However, the administration programming for youth offenders. On the other has not provided at this time specific information hand, because DJJ would be one of several on the manner or extent to which the proposed departments reporting to the HHS Agency, it could reorganization would result in such benefits or receive less attention than it currently receives why they could not be accomplished within DJJ’s under CDCR. Without a detailed proposal from the current organizational structure. administration, it is unclear at this time whether Potential Reduction in Costs if Rehabilitative the proposed reorganization would translate into Programs Improve. To the extent that the any actual impact on youth or if it would simply proposed reorganization results in improved shift responsibilities at the top of the organizational rehabilitative services, it would not only improve structure. Unless the reorganization leads to the lives of DJJ youth and increase public safety, changes in the day-to-day operations of facilities or but it would also have several direct and indirect improved coordination with other state and county fiscal benefits for the state. Direct fiscal benefits service providers, it is unlikely that it would improve could include reduced incarceration costs as outcomes for youth. well as reduced crime victim assistance costs. Potential Increased Costs. As a division Indirect benefits could include reduced costs for within a department, DJJ currently depends on public assistance if improvements to rehabilitative CDCR for certain administrative services, such programs such as career and technical training as those related to its budget, officer training, resulted in an increase in employment, thereby and population projections. Becoming a separate reducing the level of public assistance needed. department could require DJJ to now be fully These direct and indirect benefits, if accomplished, responsible and directly perform some of these could potentially reduce state expenditures—one of functions. For example, DJJ would likely need to the purposes for reorganization listed in statute. establish its own offices or divisions to oversee its www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET budget and develop population projections, which This is primarily because all of the necessary would likely require additional staff and funding that statutory changes can sometimes be difficult to could not simply be redirected from CDCR. This immediately identify or implement correctly. For is because some of the CDCR staff that currently example, the California Prison Industry Authority provide these services for DJJ also provide service (CalPIA) currently operates a number of vocational to other divisions within the department and utilize programs within DJJ facilities. However, CalPIA resources such as computers, software, and office may not have the statutory authority to continue space that would likely still be needed by CDCR. operating these programs if DJJ was separated Thus, recreating these divisions would result in a from CDCR absent any statutory changes. duplication of effort. We also note that the rationale We note that prior government reorganizations for the 2005 reorganization that consolidated the have sometimes caused an unintended disruption Youth and Adult Corrections Agency into CDCR in services. For example, when supervision of included centralizing the policy and administrative former DJJ wards in the community was shifted functions with the intent of eliminating duplications from DJJ to the counties in 2010, the honorable of effort. discharge process—in which the Board of Juvenile Hearings recognizes youths for their efforts at Potential Challenges in Coordinating With rehabilitating themselves—unintentionally stopped. CDCR. Currently, there are multiple circumstances This was because the board no longer had in which offenders move between DJJ and CDCR jurisdiction over the youth. The honorable discharge custody. For example, some youth who are tried as process for former wards of DJJ was eventually adults begin their sentence in DJJ but are moved to re-established seven years later through legislation. a CDCR adult prison after they turn 18. In addition, some young adults are transferred to DJJ after Are There Alternative being sentenced to state prison, such as those who Organizational Options Available? are part of the Young Adult Offender pilot discussed earlier. Moreover, youth who are convicted in In evaluating the Governor’s proposal, the adult court but serve their terms in DJJ are often Legislature will also want to consider other options released to the supervision of CDCR’s adult parole that are available to adjust the organizational division. If DJJ becomes a separate department, it structure of the state’s juvenile justice system. For may be more difficult to coordinate these transfers example the Legislature might want to consider leading to delays, issues with information sharing, trends in how other states have organized their or other complications. juvenile justice systems and what other ways the Legislature could change California’s juvenile justice Moving individuals between CDCR and another system. As we discuss below, the Legislature will state department has caused challenges in the want to weigh the relative trade-offs of each of the past. Specifically, CDCR used to refer many alternative structures. inmates with serious mental health conditions to DSH for treatment. However, the resulting Organization of Juvenile Justice in Other interdepartmental transfers contributed to delays States Varies. The organization of juvenile justice in providing the treatment. Accordingly, in 2017, systems vary widely across states. However, a federal court issued an order stating that CDCR they generally fall into one of four categories. needed to eliminate delays in transferring patients Specifically, state-level juvenile justice systems to the appropriate level of mental health care. This are typically (1) independent departments that was part of a ongoing case now referred to as are not under a larger agency structure, (2) part Coleman v. Newsom. of a department or agency that includes adult corrections (similar to DJJ’s current structure), Potential Disruption in Services. The (3) part of a broad human services agency (similar complexity of most government reorganizations— to the Governor’s proposal for DJJ reorganization), such as the one proposed by the Governor—can or (4) part of an agency focused specifically on often result in an unintended disruption in services. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET family or child welfare. Figure 3 shows trends in the of human services agencies to being merged organizational structure of state-level juvenile justice with their adult corrections systems. systems between 1993 and 2015. In 1993 the • Washington D.C., Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, most common structure was for state-level juvenile Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Vermont justice systems to be part of a human services all shifted their juvenile justice systems from agency. However, half of the states that had this being parts of human services agencies to organizational structure moved away from it by being independent departments. 2005. As of 2015, independent departments are Making DJJ an Independent Department. As the most common organization structure. A few noted above, the most common approach among notable shifts in organizational structures between other states is to have their state-level juvenile 1993 and 2015 include the following: justice system be an independent department. • Colorado shifted its juvenile justice system As a division of CDCR, the operations of DJJ from being merged with its adult corrections are subject to the guidance and direction of the system to being part of a human services department. If it is demonstrated that the current agency. structure inhibits rehabilitation efforts, making • Kansas, North Carolina, and Wisconsin shifted DJJ an independent entity could improve them. their juvenile justice systems from being parts In addition, this approach could potentially allow the administration and the Legislature to provide Figure 3 Proportion of State Juvenile Justice Systems Within a Human Services Agency Has Declined 1993 2015 Part of a Human Services Agency Independent Department Part of a Family/Child Welfare Agency Combined With Adult Correctional System www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET greater oversight of DJJ, as they would not have of their communities and youth offenders. For to go through CDCR (as is currently the case) or example, one county might choose to take actions potentially the HHS Agency (as proposed by the to reduce gang involvement while another county Governor). On the other hand, eliminating the might focus on vocational training. We note that role of an intermediary such as CDCR or the HHS if the Legislature decides to realign the state’s Agency could actually result in DJJ receiving less remaining juvenile justice responsibilities to the oversight and support. It could also result in many counties, it would want to consider (1) a funding of the unintended consequences of the Governor’s structure that incentivizes innovation and efficiency, proposed reorganization, such as increased costs (2) a plan that ensures a smooth transition, (3) a and making it more challenging to coordinate with process to provide state oversight and technical other divisions of CDCR. assistance, and (4) policy changes necessary to ensure that the realignment would not result in Realignment of DJJ to Counties. As discussed youth simply being shifted into the adult system. earlier, California has already shifted most juvenile (Please see our report, The 2012-13 Budget: justice responsibilities to the counties. One Completing Juvenile Justice Realignment, for more option for legislative consideration is to realign information regarding the possible realignment of DJJ’s remaining responsibilities to the counties. DJJ.) Our analysis indicates that such a shift would have several potential benefits compared to Maintain Existing Structure but Consider the current structure of DJJ. For example, a full Other Changes. As stated earlier, some of the realignment of juvenile justice to counties would identified benefits of reorganization could potentially increase accountability for results by concentrating be achieved within the current structure of DJJ. For responsibility for the juvenile justice system in example, policies could be developed to improve one level of government, as well as strengthen coordination between DJJ, counties, and other the incentive for counties to prevent youth from state departments. In addition, the Legislature becoming serious offenders. In addition, keeping could take actions to increase third-party oversight youth at the local level would allow them to be and evaluation of DJJ rehabilitation programs if it is closer to support structures (such as family) and concerned that DJJ needs further improvement in better position probation departments to help youth these areas. Between 2006 and 2016, the Special transition through the system and secure services Master in the Farrell case conducted quarterly in the community. inspections of DJJ’s operations. Since 2016, however, third-party oversight has been limited. Fully realigning the juvenile justice system to While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) counties would also likely reduce state costs and provides some oversight, it is generally limited allow for more efficient use of existing facilities. to the division’s response to claims of employee Currently, DJJ’s facilities are at about 40 percent of misconduct and use of force and there is minimal their total capacity. This has led to significantly high oversight of DJJ rehabilitation programs. We note per DJJ capita costs due to the high fixed costs that increasing oversight—either by the OIG or of running the facilities despite the low population another entity—would likely require additional levels. Similarly, counties are operating their resources. facilities at about 30 percent of their capacity on We also note that CDCR’s adult prison system average. Accordingly, realignment would allow the has inmate rehabilitation as one of its primary state to avoid the large fixed costs of its facilities, goals. However, in a recent report, the State and make better use of existing county facilities by Auditor found that administrative practices within placing the existing DJJ population in them. the adult prison system—such as not placing In addition to reducing overall costs, inmates into appropriate rehabilitative programs concentrating resources at the local level would and a lack of oversight regarding the effective give counties the flexibility to adopt policies and implementation of such programs—have limited strategies that are aligned with the particular needs the effectiveness of certain rehabilitative programs 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET at reducing recidivism. To the extent that the agency reorganization proposals that it intended barriers to effective rehabilitation programming to pursue through budget trailer legislation. At the impacting the adult prison system are similar to time, questions were raised in the Legislature as those impacting DJJ’s rehabilitative efforts, the to whether it would be appropriate to reorganize Legislature could consider directly addressing state agencies without going through the the barriers within CDCR rather than moving DJJ process established in statute. Ultimately, the into a separate department. To the extent this reorganizations went through the executive branch approach was successful, it would not only improve reorganization process. outcomes for the roughly 700 youth in DJJ, but The executive reorganization process is not also for the 127,000 inmates and 50,000 parolees only relatively expedient (it can be completed in in the adult system. 90 days) but also includes a framework designed Should the Reorganization of DJJ to increase the likelihood that a reorganization would be effective and smoothly implemented. For Be Done Through Budget Trailer example, as part of the process, the Little Hoover Legislation? Commission conducts an independent analysis to The administration has not provided a rationale determine the plan’s impact on state operations, for why this reorganization should be done with which could help identify potential consequences of budget trailer legislation rather than going through the reorganization. In addition, the process requires the executive branch reorganization process that plans put forward by the Governor must established in statute. When considering the (1) provide for the transfer or disposition of any reorganization plan, the Legislature might also want property or records affected by the reorganization; to consider whether this approach is appropriate. (2) ensure that any unexpended appropriations are We note that the legislature has raised concerns transferred in accordance to the legislative intent about using budget trailer legislation for similar for the funds; and (3) list all statutes that would be purposes in the past. For example, in 2012-13, inconsistent with the reorganization plan and as a the Governor’s proposed budget included three result, would be suspended. These requirements would not apply to trailer bill language. CONCLUSION Over the years, the organizational structure well-defined purpose and plan for carrying out this of the state’s juvenile justice system has evolved. proposal. As the Governor develops his proposed While the Governor’s proposal to place DJJ under reorganization of DJJ and provides additional the HHS Agency with the goal of improving the detail going forward, it will be important for the outcomes of youth could have some potential Legislature to consider several key questions benefits, the administration has provided very little (such as whether DJJ needs to be reorganized to in the way of details at this time about how the remove barriers to rehabilitation) and weigh the reorganization would be implemented and why relative trade-offs of such a change. Moreover, the it is needed. Given the complexity of both the Legislature could consider alternative approaches state’s juvenile justice system and the process of to the Governor’s proposal that could more reorganizing state government, there should be a effectively result in improved outcomes for youth. www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter 2019-20 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Luke Koushmaro and reviewed by Drew Soderborg. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE