The 2020-21 Budget: Criminal Justice Proposals

The 2020-21 Budget: Criminal Justice Proposals GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FEBRUARY 18, 2020 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Criminal Justice Budget Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Cross-Cutting Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Combining the State’s Programs for Victims of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Probation Funding and Reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Indigent Defense Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Trends in the Adult Inmate and Parolee Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conservation Camps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Correctional Staff Training and Job Shadowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Applying Credits to Advance Youth Offender Parole Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Exonerated Housing Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Expansion of the Male Community Reentry Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Expansion of Higher Education Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Technology for Inmates Participating in Academic Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Medication Room Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Telehealth Services Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Psychiatry Registry Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Contract Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Medical Imaging Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Department of Youth and Community Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Resources and Augmentation Authority to Establish DYCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Training for Youth Correctional Counselors and Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Judicial Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Online Adjudication of Infractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Court Navigator Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 County Office of Education Offset of Trial Court General Fund Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Bureau of Forensic Services Suppor .t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Firearm Precursor Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Resources to Implement Legislation and Other Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Licensing Staff for Bureau of Gambling Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 www.lao.ca.gov analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Executive Summary Overview. The Governor’s 2020-21 budget includes a total of $19 .7 billion from all fund sources for the operation of judicial and criminal justice programs . This is a net increase of $341 million (2 percent) over the revised 2019-20 level of spending . General Fund spending is proposed to be $16 .2 billion in 2020-21, which represents an increase of $213 million (1 percent) above the revised 2019-20 level . In this report, we assess many of the Governor’s budget proposals in the judicial and criminal justice area and recommend various changes . Below, we summarize some of our major recommendations . We provide a complete listing of our recommendations at the end of the report . Probation Funding and Reforms. The Governor proposes $71 million (General Fund) and budget trailer legislation to (1) modify the existing funding formula for incentivizing counties to reduce the rate at which they send felons on community supervision to state prison (referred to as the SB 678 funding formula), (2) require increased supervision of certain misdemeanor probationers and provide limited-term funding for this supervision, and (3) reduce the length of felony and misdemeanor probation . We recommend the Legislature reject the proposed changes to the SB 678 formula as they could have unintended consequences, such as reducing counties’ incentive to send fewer individuals to prison . However, in order to more effectively keep misdemeanor probationers out of prison, we recommend expanding the SB 678 formula to include misdemeanor probationers as an alternative to the proposed increase in misdemeanor probation supervision . Finally, we recommend that the Legislature reject the proposal to reduce the length of probation as it could result in a larger portion of individuals being sentenced to jail or prison . Correctional Staff Training and Job Shadowing. The Governor’s budget includes a total of $21 .4 million (General Fund) to implement various initiatives to improve correctional staff training, such as a facility for hands-on officer training and a new job shadowing program . While the various training initiatives generally appear worthwhile, we recommend that the Legislature reject 42 of the requested 85 positions and associated $6 .7 million because they have not been fully justified . We also recommend the Legislature require the administration to provide an annual report on training outcomes that could be impacted by the initiatives . This would allow the Legislature more effectively provide oversight of officer standards and training . Telehealth Services Building. The Governor’s budget proposes $2 million (General Fund) for preliminary plans to construct a telehealth services building at San Quentin State Prison to better recruit Bay Area physicians and psychiatrists to provide telehealth services . The estimated total cost of the project is $26 million . We recommend that the Legislature reject the proposal and instead direct the administration to provide a plan next year to utilize telecommuting . We find that utilizing telecommuting would have several benefits over the proposed capital outlay project including being much less costly and allowing for wider recruitment . Online Adjudication of Infractions. The Governor’s budget proposes $11 .5 million (General Fund)—increasing to $56 million annually beginning in 2023-24—to expand statewide the use of an online adjudication tool . We find that the impacts of the online adjudication tool are still uncertain and could require more funding than currently proposed . It is also premature to expand www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET the tool statewide prior to the completion of the statutorily required evaluation of the tool . Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature reject the Governor’s proposal . Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) Support. The Governor’s budget proposes to provide a total of $49 .7 million in one-time and ongoing General Fund to (1) backfill declines in criminal fine and fee revenue supporting BFS; (2) fund the site acquisition and planning phase for a new consolidated forensic science laboratory campus; and (3) fund equipment replacement, facility maintenance, and workload related to recent legislation . We recommend the Legislature approve these proposals . In addition, we also recommend requiring local agencies to partially support BFS beginning in 2021-22 and directing the Department of Justice to develop a plan to implement this change given the substantial benefit BFS provides local agencies . This would provide an ongoing solution to the continued decline in BFS fine and fee revenue . 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET CRIMINAL JUSTICE BUDGET OVERVIEW The primary goal of California’s criminal justice State Operational Expenditure Trends system is to provide public safety by deterring Spending Was Relatively Low Early in the and preventing crime, punishing individuals Decade… As shown in Figure 1, total state who commit crime, and reintegrating offenders expenditures on the operation of criminal justice back into the community . The state’s major programs were relatively low in the early part of criminal justice programs include the court the decade . This was primarily due to two factors . system, the California Department of Corrections First, in 2011 the state realigned various criminal and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the California justice responsibilities to the counties, including the Department of Justice (DOJ) . The Governor’s responsibility for certain low-level felony offenders . budget for 2020-21 proposes total expenditures This realignment reduced state correctional of $19 .7 billion for the operation of judicial and spending and was the primary reason for the criminal justice programs . Below, we describe decrease in expenditures between 2011-12 and recent trends in state spending on criminal justice 2012-13 . Second, the judicial branch—particularly and provide an overview of the major changes in the trial courts—received significant one-time the Governor’s proposed budget for criminal justice and ongoing General Fund reductions . A major programs in 2020-21 . motivation behind both the 2011 realignment and the reductions made to trial courts was the fact that the state faced annual budget shortfalls exceeding Figure 1 Judicial and Criminal Justice Expenditures (In Billions) $20 15 10 Special and Other Funds General Fund 5 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 (Estimated) (Proposed) www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET several billion dollars between 2008-09 and Despite Significant Population Reductions .) During 2012-13 due to the Great Recession . this same time period, various augmentations were …But Has Increased Steadily Since Then. provided to the trial courts to offset reductions However, overall spending for the operational made in prior years and to fund specific activities . support of criminal justice programs has increased Governor’s Budget Proposals steadily since 2012-13 . This was largely due to additional funding for CDCR and the trial courts . Total Proposed Spending of $19.7 Billion in For example, increased CDCR expenditures 2020-21. As shown in Figure 2, the Governor’s resulted from (1) the cost of complying with 2020-21 budget includes a total of $19 .7 billion court orders related to prison overcrowding from all fund sources for the operation of judicial and improving inmate health care, (2) increased and criminal justice programs (excluding planned employee compensation costs, and (3) spending capital outlay expenditures) . This is a net increase on costs deferred during the fiscal crisis . (For of $341 million (2 percent) over the revised more information on this issue, please see our 2019-20 level of spending . General Fund spending recent brief State Correctional Spending Increased is proposed to be $16 .2 billion in 2020-21, which Figure 2 Judicial and Criminal Justice Budget Summary (Dollars in Millions) Change From 2019‑20 Actual Estimated Proposed 2018‑19 2019‑20 2020‑21 Actual Percent Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation $12,597 $13,320 $13,395 $75 0.6% General Funda 12,278 13,014 13,088 75 0.6 Special and other funds 319 306 306 — — Judicial Branchb $3,801 $4,330 $4,367 $37 0.9% General Fund 1,860 2,240 2,192 -48 -2.1 Special and other funds 1,941 2,090 2,176 85 4.1 Department of Justicec $902 $1,086 $1,107 $22 2.0% General Fund 291 360 370 10 2.8 Special and other funds 611 725 737 12 1.6 Board of State and Community Corrections $185 $381 $298 ‑$83 ‑21.7% General Fund 93 255 127 -128 -50.2 Special and other funds 92 126 171 46 36.4 Department of Youth and Community Restorationd — — $290 $290 — General Fund — — 284 284 — Special and other funds — — 5 5 — Other Departmentse $265 $290 $291 $1 0.2% General Fund 95 112 132 20 17.8 Special and other funds 169 178 159 -19 -10.9 Totals, All Departments $17,750 $19,407 $19,748 $341 1.8% General Fund 14,618 15,981 16,194 213 1.3 Special and other funds 3,131 3,426 3,555 129 3.8 a Does not include revenues to General Fund to offset corrections spending from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. b Includes funds received from local property tax revenue. c Does not include funding related to the National Mortgage Settlement. d Was previously the Division of Juvenile Justice within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. e Includes Office of the Inspector General, Commission on Judicial Performance, California Victim Compensation Board, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, State Public Defender, funds provided for trial court security, and debt service on general obligation bonds. Note: Detail may not total due to rounding. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET represents an increase of $213 million (1 percent) changes in the way county probation departments above the revised 2019-20 level . We note that supervise misdemeanor probationers ($60 million) this increase does not include increases in and modifications to an existing grant program 2020-21 employee compensation costs for these supporting county probation departments departments, which are budgeted elsewhere . If ($11 million) . The budget also provides $35 million these costs were included, the increase would be General Fund for various proposals to expand somewhat higher . rehabilitation programs within CDCR, including Major Spending Proposals. The most $27 million to provide technology for inmates significant piece of new spending included in participating in academic programs . We note that the Governor’s budget relates to a $108 million the proposed spending increases are partially General Fund augmentation for the trial courts . offset by decreases in funding, primarily due to In addition, the budget includes $71 million the expiration of one-time grant funding previously from the General Fund to support proposed provided to the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) . CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES COMBINING THE STATE’S generally administered by OES and CalVCB . Since 2002, several entities—including the California PROGRAMS FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME Business, Consumer Services, and Housing We recommend that the Legislature direct the Agency; the Little Hoover Commission; the State administration to report at budget committee Auditor; and our office—have identified weaknesses hearings on their time line for consolidating in the state’s administration of programs serving programs that serve victims of crime. If the victims of crime and have argued for greater administration is unable to provide a time line coordination and consolidation of these programs . acceptable to the Legislature, we recommend For example, in our March 2015 report, The that the Legislature consider directing the 2015-16 Budget: Improving State Programs for administration to complete the consolidation Crime Victims, we found that (1) current victim within a designated time frame. The specific programs administered by OES and CalVCB time line for the consolidation could be lack coordination, (2) the state is likely missing developed in consultation with the Office of opportunities for federal grants, (3) many programs Emergency Services (OES) and the California are small and appear duplicative, and (4) narrowly Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB). We targeted grant programs undermine prioritization . further recommend that the time line for To address these weaknesses, we recommended consolidation be specified in budget trailer that all victim programs be consolidated under legislation to ensure that the Legislature’s a restructured CalVCB that focuses solely on direction to the administration continues to be victim programs . We also recommended that the clear. Legislature require the new board to develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing the key Background weaknesses in the state’s victim programs . Numerous Recommendations to Consolidate Legislature Required Administration to Victim Programs. The state maintains numerous Create a Plan for Consolidation. Following programs that serve victims of crime, such as our 2015 report, the Legislature enacted grants to organizations that support victims of Supplemental Reporting Language (SRL) as part child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence, of the 2015-16 budget package requiring that or other types of trauma . These programs are the administration—working with CalVCB and www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET OES—submit a plan by January 10, 2016 to we understand that there is currently no set time consolidate the state’s victim programs under line for proceeding with the consolidation effort . the same administering entity . In response to the Assessment SRL, CalVCB and OES provided a report that summarized CalVCB and OES’s respective roles Consolidation of Victims Programs Continues related to victim services and provided some to Make Programmatic Sense. We continue to examples of CalVCB and OES’s ongoing efforts to find that consolidating all victim programs under collaborate . However, the report failed to provide a single department would improve services for the required consolidation plan . Accordingly, as part victims of crime by enhancing coordination and of the 2018-19 Budget Act, the Legislature adopted maximizing the use of federal funds . Furthermore, provisional language requiring CalVCB and OES to we continue to find that this department should be provide a report to the Legislature by January 10, focused entirely on victims . This point is reinforced 2019 with options and recommendations for by the fact that, according to the administration, consolidating the state’s victim programs under one OES was unable to pursue consolidation efforts entity . In response to this requirement, CalVCB and because of its need to focus on disaster response . OES prepared a more comprehensive report . This Rationale for Delay Is Not Compelling and report contained a number of recommendations, Lack of Revised Time Line Is Problematic. including (1) a phased approach to consolidating We do not find the administration’s rationale for victim programs, starting with implementing various pausing its effort to consolidate victim programs steps to improve coordination between CalVCB indefinitely to be compelling . While there are and OES, and (2) a detailed consolidation plan in complexities associated with such a reorganization, December 2019 . the Governor is proposing several others as part Governor Expressed Intention to Consolidate of the 2020-21 budget . Notably, one of these Victim Programs. In the administration’s summary reorganizations involves bringing another entity— 2019-20 budget, the Governor indicated his plans the Seismic Safety Commission—under OES . If to submit a proposal in 2020-21 to consolidate the OES can expand its capacity to take on the Seismic state’s victim programs within a single department . Safety Commission, it seems reasonable that it He further indicated that this proposal was aimed at should have sufficient capacity to continue the addressing the problem of the state administering effort to consolidate victim programs . Accordingly, dozens of victim programs through multiple state at a minimum, we think it is reasonable for the departments in a manner that is not designed to Legislature to expect a revised time line for maximize ease of access for victims . completing this consolidation . Governor’s Proposal Recommendation Despite the Governor’s intention to pursue Require OES and CalVCB to Report at Budget a consolidation as part of his proposed Hearings on Time Line for Consolidation. 2020-21 budget, the Governor’s budget does We recommend that the Legislature direct the not include a specific proposal . Rather, the administration—including CalVCB and OES—to administration states that while it still intends report at budget committee hearings on their time to pursue this consolidation, the plan has been line for consolidating programs that serve victims temporarily paused . The administration indicates of crime in a timely manner . This information is that this pause is driven by (1) the complexity of important for the Legislature to have given its the consolidation of the state’s victim programs demonstrated interest in consolidation . and (2) OES’s limited capacity to implement the If the administration is unable to provide a time consolidation given its role in coordinating response line for consolidation that is acceptable to the and recovery efforts related to recent disasters . Legislature, we recommend that the Legislature Based on our discussions with the administration, consider directing the administration to complete the consolidation within a designated time frame . 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET The specific time line for the consolidation could be authorized by statute and can choose to accept, developed in consultation with OES and CalVCB modify, or deny plea deals . to ensure that it is realistic given the complexities Sentencing law generally defines three types of involved . We further recommend that the time crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions . frame for consolidation be specified in budget A felony is the most serious type of crime . trailer legislation to ensure that the Legislature’s Existing law classifies some felonies as “violent” direction to the administration continues to be or “serious,” or both . Examples of violent felonies clear . include murder and robbery . While almost all violent felonies are also considered serious, some felonies PROBATION FUNDING AND are only defined as serious, such as assault with REFORMS intent to commit robbery . A misdemeanor is a less serious offense . Misdemeanors include crimes such The Governor proposes $71 million General as assault, petty theft, and public drunkenness . Fund in 2020-21 and budget trailer legislation An infraction is the least serious offense and is to (1) modify the SB 678 funding formula, generally punishable by a fine . (2) require increased supervision of certain Felony Sentencing . Offenders convicted of misdemeanor probationers and provide felonies can be sentenced as follows: limited-term funding for this supervision, • County Jail or Split Sentence. Felony and (3) reduce the length of time individuals offenders who have no prior or current are on felony and misdemeanor probation. convictions for serious, violent, or sex We find that the changes to the SB 678 offenses are generally sentenced to county formula could have various unintended jail . Courts may sentence such offenders consequences and thus recommend the to spend their entire sentence in county Legislature reject these changes. In addition, jail . Alternatively, courts may require such we find that requiring supervision of certain offenders to serve a “split sentence” with misdemeanor probationers would likely not a portion of their sentence being in jail and prevent misdemeanor probationers from going a portion being in the community under to prison. As an alternative, we recommend “mandatory supervision” provided by a county the Legislature expand the SB 678 funding probation officer . Offenders who violate the formula to include misdemeanor probationers, terms of their community supervision are which would more likely reduce the number typically returned to county jail . However, if of misdemeanor probationers sent to prison. they commit a new prison-eligible crime, they Finally, we find that reducing the length of time can be sentenced to prison . individuals spend on probation could increase jail and prison sentences and thus recommend • State Prison and Parole or Post-Release the Legislature reject the proposal. Community Supervision (PRCS). Felony offenders who are ineligible for county jail Background because of their criminal history are sentenced to state prison . Upon release from prison, Overview of Sentencing. Criminal cases can be offenders with a current serious or violent resolved through plea bargains—agreements for the offense are supervised in the community defendant to plead guilty, typically in exchange for by state parole agents . The remainder of the prosecutor reducing charges or recommending offenders are generally placed on PRCS and a specific sentence—or through trials . Trials can be supervised by county probation officers . decided by a judge or by a jury . In the event that a Offenders who violate the terms of their plea deal is accepted or a guilty verdict is issued, a supervision are typically placed in county jail . judge will then hold a hearing to deliver a sentence . However, if they commit a new felony, they Judges have discretion to sentence individuals as can be sent to prison . www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET • Felony Probation. Instead of sentencing to reduce the overall felony supervision failure felony offenders to prison, county jail, or a rate, rather than just the felony probation failure split sentence, a court may place an offender rate . Chapter 26 also adjusted the SB 678 funding on felony probation, depending on the formula to reduce the volatility of the funding offender’s criminal history . Individuals placed awarded to counties . Under Chapter 26, counties on felony probation are typically assigned to receive funding based on the following three a county probation officer who supervises components: them in the community . Probation can last • Funding for Reducing Felony Supervision up to five years or the maximum sentence Failure Rate Below Prior Year. The first for the offender’s crime, whichever is greater . funding component compares a county’s most Courts can change the terms of an individual’s recent annual felony supervision failure rate probation at any time and can choose to with the rate from the previous year . If the discharge an individual from probation early failure rate is lower than the previous year, the for reasons such as good conduct and county receives 35 percent of the estimated progress towards rehabilitation . Offenders state correctional savings associated with who violate the terms of their probation can that reduction . This is intended to incentivize be subject to the felony sentence that they counties to continue to reduce the felony would have otherwise received, such as being supervision failure rate each year . sentenced to state prison . • Funding for Reducing Felony Supervision Misdemeanor Sentencing. An individual Failure Rate Below Baseline. The second convicted of a misdemeanor can be sent to jail funding component compares a county’s or placed on misdemeanor probation . Unless an felony supervision failure rate to a statewide offender is convicted of multiple misdemeanors, baseline felony supervision failure rate of jail sentences for misdemeanors cannot exceed 7 .9 percent . Depending on how the county’s one year but many have lower maximum sentences rate compares to the baseline, the county will such as six months . Misdemeanor probation can receive between 40 percent and 100 percent last for up to three years . Offenders who violate of the highest payment they received between the terms of their supervision can be subject to 2011-12 and 2014-15 . This is intended to the misdemeanor sentence that they would have (1) incentivize counties to reach a rate that otherwise received, such as being sentenced to is below the baseline and (2) ensure that a jail . However, many individuals on misdemeanor county that is already below the baseline will probation are not actively supervised by probation continue to receive funding even if it is not officers . Misdemeanor offenders who commit new able to further reduce its rate . prison-eligible felonies can be sent to prison . • Funding to Guarantee $200,000 Minimum California Performance Incentives Act Award. The third component guarantees that (SB 678). Chapter 608 of 2009 (SB 678, Leno) each county receives at least $200,000 . If was enacted to incentivize counties to reduce the first two components total less than this the rate at which they sent felony probationers to amount, the county’s award is increased to state prison—known as the felony probation failure $200,000 . This is intended to ensure counties rate . Under SB 678, counties received a portion continue to receive at least some state of the state correctional savings that resulted from funding . reductions in the felony probation failure rate . Counties can only use SB 678 funding to provide Chapter 26 of 2015 (SB 85, Committee on Budget supervision and rehabilitation services for offenders and Fiscal Review) updated the formula to award on felony supervision . Examples of how this funding counties for reductions in the rate at which the could be used include electronic monitoring and other felony supervision populations—offenders evidence-based rehabilitation programs, such as on PRCS and mandatory supervision—are sent to cognitive behavioral treatment . In addition, counties prison . Accordingly, this gave counties the incentive 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET are required to evaluate the effectiveness of their The administration is also proposing to broaden programs and practices and can use the funding to the allowable uses of SB 678 funds to include pay for these evaluations . services and supervision for misdemeanor probationers . As we discuss below, this is intended Governor’s Proposals to help counties offset the costs associated with The Governor’s budget for 2020-21 includes the Governor’s proposal to require increased various proposals totaling $71 million General Fund supervision of certain misdemeanor probationers . (declining to $11 million annually by 2024-25) and Increased Misdemeanor Probation budget trailer legislation that would (1) modify Supervision and Funding ($60 Million). the SB 678 funding formula, (2) require increased The Governor proposes requiring probation supervision of certain misdemeanor probationers departments to more actively supervise individuals and provide limited-term funding to support this on misdemeanor probation for certain offenses . supervision, and (3) reduce the length of time Specifically, departments would be required to individuals would be on felony and misdemeanor actively supervise misdemeanor probationers probation . We describe these changes in greater whose offenses are related to the unlawful detail below . possession of firearms, theft, domestic violence, Modification to SB 678 Funding Formula and certain sex offenses . ($11 Million). The Governor proposes budget In addition, the Governor’s budget includes trailer legislation to modify the SB 678 funding increased General Fund support over a four-year formula in an effort to further reduce the volatility in period—$60 million annually in 2020-21 through the funding that the program provides to counties . 2022-23, and $30 million in 2023-24—for county Under the Governor’s proposal, counties would probation departments to increase the level of no longer receive funding based on their felony supervision provided to individuals on misdemeanor supervision failure rate . Instead, counties would probation for the above offenses . The funding receive a set amount each year equal to the is intended to support the required increase in highest award they received between 2017-18 and supervision for four years . After the four-year 2019-20 . To fund this change, the administration is period, counties would continue to be required proposing $11 million from the General Fund on an to provide increased supervision to the specified ongoing basis . misdemeanor probationers but would need to use However, the amount a county receives could their own funds to do so, as state funding would be reduced in the future if the county increases no longer be provided specifically for this purpose . the number of felons on community supervision Due to the Governor’s proposed change in the they send to prison in multiple years . Specifically, allowable uses of SB 678 funds mentioned above, counties would receive warnings if there is an counties could choose to use that funding to pay increase in the total number of individuals on felony for these costs . supervision who are sent to prison in a given year According to the administration, the above that exceeds the county’s baseline amount by ten changes are in response to an increase in individuals or 24 percent (whichever is greater) . the number of individuals with prior terms of The baseline for each county would be equal misdemeanor probation being admitted to prison . to the average number of individuals on felony The administration indicates that requiring the supervision who were sent to prison between 2016 supervision of misdemeanor probationers and and 2018 . A county’s funding in a given year would providing limited-term funding to support the be reduced to 50 percent of its prior year award if supervision would reduce the likelihood that such the county had received two or more warnings in individuals end up in prison . the three preceding years . However, as is currently Reduce Length of Felony and Misdemeanor the case, counties would be guaranteed at least Probation Supervision. The Governor proposes $200,000 in funding . to reduce the maximum amount of time individuals could spend on felony and misdemeanor probation www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET to the lesser of (1) two years or (2) the maximum penalized and receive less funding if they term of incarceration for their crime . In practice, increase the total number of individuals on this would mean that misdemeanor probation felony supervision who are sent to prison would be capped at one year—the maximum over multiple years and receive two or more term of incarceration for misdemeanors—unless warnings . Such counties could actually the offender had been convicted of multiple experience more volatility once penalized . misdemeanors . This could make it difficult for a county to The Governor also proposes establishing a recover once its funding has been cut . For process to allow individuals on felony probation example, if a county receives two warnings or on misdemeanor probation for one of the in the three most recent years, it would only misdemeanors requiring supervision to be receive 50 percent of its prior-year award . discharged early . Under the proposal, county If the county then received another penalty probation departments would be required to in the following year, its funding would be discharge such individuals from probation if they reduced by another 50 percent . As a result, have substantially complied with the terms of their if a county received multiple penalties in a probation for one year . row, its funding could eventually be reduced to the minimum of $200,000 . This means the According to the administration, the above proposed changes could actually increase changes should result in counties providing rather than reduce volatility in SB 678 increased supervision and services earlier in the funding . Moreover, the proposed penalties probation term, when research indicates individuals could reduce the availability of resources for are more likely to recidivate . The administration counties to pursue evidence-based practices . indicates that this should lead to improved As a result, not only would funding levels be outcomes for misdemeanor probationers and highly volatile, the funding structure could reduce the number of such probationers sent to undermine future performance if reduced prison . resources lead to counties providing fewer Assessment services . Figure 3 provides an example of how a county that starts out with a $1 million Proposal to Address SB 678 Volatility Is award could be impacted by the proposed Unnecessary and Could Create Unintended funding formula in this way . Consequences. As discussed earlier, the Governor • Proposal Undermines Incentive to Reduce proposes to reduce the volatility in the SB 678 Prison Population. The current formula for funding that is provided to counties . However, we SB 678 incentivizes counties to continue to find that the fluctuations in SB 678 funding are reduce the prison population by reducing the generally relatively small compared to the total felony supervision failure rate . In contrast, budgets for county probation departments . On under the proposed approach, counties would average, the difference between the minimum only be incentivized to keep the number of and maximum award counties received over the individuals sent to prison low enough to avoid last three years was less than $400,000, or about a warning . Removing the incentive for further 1 percent of the average probation department reductions would undermine the legislative budget in 2017-18 (the most recent data available) . intent of SB 678 . Moreover, we find that that administration’s • Number of Supervised Individuals Could proposal to change the SB 678 funding formula Distort Penalties and Rewards. The is problematic and can result in unintended proposed formula would be based on the consequences . Specifically, we find the following: number of individuals on felony supervision • Proposal Could Actually Increase Volatility who are sent to prison rather than on changes and Harm Future Performance. Under to the felony supervision failure rate . This the Governor’s proposal, counties would be means that counties that have an increase 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET in the number of individuals on felony Proposed Increase in Misdemeanor supervision could potentially be penalized Probation Supervision Problematic… The for maintaining or even improving their felony administration states that requiring counties to supervision rate . It could also mean that supervise certain misdemeanor probationers and counties whose felony supervision populations providing limited-term funding for misdemeanor decline could have an increase in the supervision and services would reduce the number felony supervision failure rate without being of misdemeanor probationers who eventually end penalized . Figure 4 (see next page) provides up in prison . However, the following aspects of the two hypothetical scenarios of a county proposal make it unlikely that this would occur . (County A) getting a warning despite improved • Funding Provided Irrespective of Success. performance while another county (County B) Unlike the current SB 678 funding formula does not get a warning despite more than for individuals on felony supervision, the doubling its felony supervision failure rate . proposed resources for misdemeanor Given the administration’s proposal to reduce probation would not be based on the extent the length of supervision, it is likely that to which counties reduce the number of felony supervision populations could decline individuals who are sent to prison . Instead, significantly, making scenarios similar to the counties would receive these funds one illustrated for County B more likely . irrespective of whether they reduce prison commitments . Figure 3 Example of How Proposal Could Cause a County's SB 678 Funding to Fluctuatea $1,200,000 Warning Received 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 Annual Funding Level 400,000 200,000 2020-21 2022-23 2024-25 2026-27 2028-29 2030-31 2032-33 2034-35 a If a county receives two warnings in three years, its SB 678 funding would be cut to half of the prior year's award as a penalty . www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Figure 4 County Funding Levels Could Be Impacted by Warnings Caused by Population Changes Rather Than Performancea County A Felony Supervision Population Failures Failure Rate Baseline 2,000 200 10% New 3,000 250 8% Change 50% 25% -2% Warning Received Number of Failures Increased More Than 24 Percent Despite Lower Failure Rate . County B Felony Supervision Population Failures Failure Rate Baseline 2,000 250 13% New 1,000 300 30% Change -50% 20% 18% No Warning Received Number of Failures Increased Less Than 24 Percent Despite Large Increase in Failure Rate . a A county would receive a warning if the number of failures exceeds the baseline by 24 percent or ten individuals (whichever is greater) . If a county receives two warnings in three years, their SB 678 funding would be cut to half of the prior year's award as a penalty . • Lack of Incentive for Counties to Actually • Could Prevent Counties From Using Increase Service Levels. While the Resources in More Effective Ways. administration intends to increase services for Research suggests that the most effective individuals on misdemeanor probation, it is way to reduce recidivism is to concentrate not clear that counties would actually increase resources on individuals with a high risk such services . This is because the proposal to reoffend and a high need for services . only requires the supervision of certain However, the proposal’s supervision individuals on misdemeanor probation but requirement would be based on the does not require counties to provide additional individual’s offense rather than the individual’s services . We note that counties currently risk of reoffending or need for services . As a have the authority to provide services to result, the proposal could result in resources misdemeanor probationers . If counties being unnecessarily spent on misdemeanor thought this was an effective use of their probationers that are low risk and/or low need funding, they would likely already be providing instead of allowing those resources to be these services . used in ways that could be more effective at reducing recidivism . 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET …and More Effective Alternative Exists. We • Requiring Early Discharge Could Increase find that expanding the current SB 678 funding Sentences to Jail and Prison Similarly, formula to award counties for reducing the rate at mandating that probation departments which misdemeanor probationers are sent to prison provide probationers early discharge if they is a better approach to reducing the number of generally comply with the terms of their such individuals in prison relative to the Governor’s supervision could further disincentive courts proposal . First, unlike the administration’s from placing an individual on probation . approach, it would give counties an ongoing fiscal Courts already have the discretion—and a incentive to reduce the number of misdemeanor process established in statute—to terminate probationers sent to prison . Second, it would also an individual’s probation early for reasons give counties the flexibility to focus supervision such as good conduct and progress towards and services on the misdemeanor probationers rehabilitation . As a result, the proposed they have identified as having the highest risks and early discharge process would only make a needs rather than requiring counties to focus on meaningful difference in cases where it results individuals on probation supervision for specific in an individual being released earlier than offenses . This could ultimately help reduce the the courts would otherwise authorize . Courts state’s prison population and create state savings, might consider this when determining how to that would be partially shared with the counties sentence such an individual and, in order to responsible for creating it . prevent this from occurring, might send the Reducing Probation Terms and Mandating individual to prison or jail . Early Discharge Could Have Unintended • Changes Could Result in More Plea Consequences. While reducing probation terms Bargains Requiring Incarceration. While might result in counties choosing to provide many cases would likely continue to be settled additional supervision and services earlier in the with plea bargains, we note that reducing probation term, it would likely have unintended the length of probation and judicial discretion consequences . in decisions to terminate probation early might also be a concern for prosecutors . • Limit on Probation Terms Could Increase For example, under the current process Sentences to Jail and Prison. Courts prosecutors can weigh in on decisions to already have the discretion to both set an terminate probation early but the proposed individual’s probation at two years or less . If early discharge process does not include such courts determine that someone should be on a role for prosecutors . As a result, prosecutors probation for more than two years, the court might be more reluctant to propose or accept likely feels that the individual would not be plea bargains involving probation for reasons ready to be in the community unsupervised similar to those above . This could result in a before that time . It is unlikely that the larger portion of plea bargains involving prison Governor’s proposed limits would change this or jail . sentiment . Instead, because the two-year limit would only apply to probation, it might lead Recommendations courts to consider other sentencing options that would result in offenders being monitored Reject Proposal to Stabilize SB 678 Funding. for a longer period of time . For example, the We recommend that the Legislature reject the courts could place an individual in prison Governor’s proposed statutory changes to SB 678 which would then be followed by parole or and $11 million augmentation to support these PRCS . We would note that because such changes . We find that the Governor’s proposal alternatives to probation involve incarceration, is unnecessary as the current volatility in SB 678 it would also result in more individuals being funding appears to be relatively low . In addition, placed in jail or prison . we find that the proposed changes to the formula could have a number of unintended consequences, www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET such as increasing the volatility of the funding primary goals of the program and the types of counties receive and reducing their incentive to activities that would be funded) by April 15, keep felony probationers out of prison . 2020. Pending receipt of this information, we Reject Misdemeanor Probation Proposal and recommend the Legislature withhold action on Instead Expand SB 678. We recommend that the the Governor’s proposal. Legislature reject the Governor’s proposal to require Background counties to supervise individuals on probation for certain misdemeanor offenses, given that it appears Counties Generally Responsible for unlikely that the proposal would effectively prevent Providing Attorney Representation in Criminal misdemeanor probationers from going to prison . Cases. Both the federal and state Constitution Instead, we recommend the Legislature expand guarantee certain rights to defendants in criminal the current SB 678 funding formula to reward cases, including the right to the assistance of an counties for keeping misdemeanor probationers attorney in their defense . The state has generally out of prison . We find that this would be more delegated responsibility for providing such likely to reduce the number of misdemeanor assistance to the counties . As such, counties probationers who are sent to prison . We note that if are typically responsible for funding defense the Legislature chose to expand SB 678 to include attorneys for indigent defendants (generally misdemeanor probationers, it could consider defined as individuals who cannot afford their own providing counties with some initial funding to attorneys) in criminal cases . Counties provide assist in the expansion of evidence-based practices defense attorneys to indigent defendants in three and services for this population . For example, ways: (1) establishing a county-operated public the Legislature could redirect the $60 million defender’s office, (2) contracting with private law for misdemeanor supervision proposed by the firms or practitioners, and (3) paying for attorneys Governor in 2020-21, or a different amount, for appointed by the court . In 2017-18, counties this purpose on a limited-term basis . This would reported spending roughly $1 billion on public allow counties to create evidence-based services defense attorney representation . for misdemeanor probationers that would help Concerns With Effective Defense prevent them from being sent to prison . As a Representation. In recent years, concerns result, counties would receive a portion of the have been raised about the effectiveness of resulting state savings to maintain and expand such the representation counties provide to indigent services . defendants . For example, the ACLU and certain Reject Proposal to Reduce Probation Terms . private law firms sued the State of California and We recommend that the Legislature reject the Fresno County alleging that the state and Fresno Governor’s proposal to reduce probation terms by County are failing to provide meaningful and limiting them to two years and instituting mandatory effective legal defense representation to indigent early discharge . We are seriously concerned defendants in criminal cases . The litigation raised that these changes could have unintended various concerns, including the lack of appropriate consequences, such as increasing the number levels of funding for defense representation, the of individuals who are sentenced to jail or prison lack of parity in funding between prosecutors and rather than probation . defense attorneys, excessive defense attorney caseloads, and the lack of necessary training to INDIGENT DEFENSE GRANT ensure meaningful representation of clients . Similar concerns have been raised in other states as well . PROGRAM Governor’s Proposal We recommend that the Legislature direct the administration to provide specific The Governor’s budget proposes $10 million details regarding the proposed pilot program General Fund (one time) for the Board of State and for indigent defense services (such as the Community Corrections (BSCC) to administer a 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET pilot program, in consultation with the Office of the provides clear information on how funded programs State Public Defender, to provide grants to eligible and activities would be evaluated and the specific county public defender offices for indigent defense information that would be collected to do so . services . Of this amount, up to $200,000 would Such information is important as it would help be available for BSCC to contract for an evaluation ensure that data is collected consistently to enable of the pilot grant program . Finally, grant recipients comparisons between counties and between would be required to report on the use of this funded programs and activities aimed at addressing funding to BSCC . The administration indicates that the same identified goal . More importantly, it would additional details about the proposed pilot program help ensure that the Legislature has sufficient will be forthcoming . information to determine the effectiveness of the pilot program and whether it should be continued Ensure Proposed Grant Program Is on a larger scale in the future, particularly in the Consistent With Legislative Priorities larger context of indigent defense representation . While it is possible that the proposed pilot grant Recommendation program could be worthwhile, the Legislature currently does not have sufficient information from Withhold Action Pending Additional the administration to effectively evaluate its merits . Information. In light of the above concerns, Accordingly, the Legislature will want to ensure that we recommend the Legislature direct the the administration provides additional information administration to provide details on the grant that clearly outlines what specific goals the program by April 15, 2020 . Specifically, such program is intended to achieve and what specific details should include: (1) the primary goals of the activities the funds would support . For example, proposed grant program, (2) the specific types it is currently not clear whether the program is of programs and activities that would be eligible intended to reduce caseloads, improve the quality for funding for each goal, and (3) how funded or consistency of defenses raised by attorneys, programs and activities would be evaluated . This or achieve some other goal . Knowing the goals information would help the Legislature effectively of the program and how the funds would be used evaluate whether the program is structured in would help the Legislature determine whether the a manner consistent with its priorities . Until the program is structured in a manner consistent with above information is provided, we recommend its priorities . the Legislature withhold action on the Governor’s proposal . To the extent that the administration is Additionally, given that the program is a pilot, the unable to provide the specified details, we would Legislature will want to ensure the administration recommend the Legislature reject this proposal . CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION OVERVIEW and 42 conservation camps . About 2,800 inmates are housed in contracted prisons . The department CDCR is responsible for the incarceration of also supervises and treats about 52,100 adult adult felons, including the provision of training, parolees and is responsible for the apprehension of education, and health care services . As of those parolees who violate the terms of their parole . January 15, 2020, CDCR housed about 123,700 In addition, 769 juvenile offenders are housed in adult inmates in the state’s prison system . Most of facilities operated by CDCR’s Division of Juvenile these inmates are housed in the state’s 35 prisons Justice (DJJ), which includes three facilities and www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET one conservation camp . However, beginning July 1, This amount includes (1) $92 million in additional 2020, DJJ will be removed from CDCR and become General Fund support to continue previously a separate department—the Department of Youth approved projects and to begin four new projects and Community Restoration . at existing CDCR facilities, (2) $91 million in new Operational Spending Proposed for 2020-21. lease revenue bond authority to construct a mental The Governor’s budget proposes total expenditures health crisis bed facility at the California Institution of $13 .4 billion ($13 .1 billion General Fund) for for Men in Chino, and (3) $224 million in previously CDCR operations in 2020-21 . Figure 5 shows authorized General Fund lease revenue bonds the total operating expenditures estimated in for various counties to construct or renovate the Governor’s budget for the prior and current correctional facilities . years and proposed for the budget year . As the figure indicates, the proposed spending level is TRENDS IN THE ADULT INMATE an increase of $75 million, or less than 1 percent, AND PAROLEE POPULATIONS from the estimated 2019-20 spending level . This increase reflects various augmentations, We withhold recommendation on the including increased workers compensation costs administration’s adult population funding and funding proposed by the Governor for adult request pending receipt of updated population probation departments as a part of a proposal to projections at the May Revision. change probation supervision terms and practices Background discussed earlier in this report . This additional proposed spending is partially offset by various As shown in Figure 6, the average daily inmate spending reductions, most notably a reduction population is projected to be 123,700 inmates reflecting the shift of DJJ and reduced spending in 2020-21, a decrease of about 900 inmates for contract beds . (The proposed $75 million (1 percent) from the estimated current-year level . increase does not include anticipated increases in The average daily parolee population is projected employee compensation costs in 2020-21 because to be 50,500 in 2020-21—roughly the same as they are accounted for elsewhere in the budget . the estimated current-year level . The projected These increases are currently budgeted to exceed decrease in the inmate population is primarily due $100 million .) to the estimated impact of Proposition 57 (2016), Capital Outlay Spending Proposed for which made certain nonviolent offenders eligible 2020-21. The Governor’s budget proposes total for parole consideration and expanded CDCR’s expenditures of $497 million ($111 million General authority to reduce inmates’ prison terms through Fund) for CDCR capital outlay projects in 2020-21 . credits . Figure 5 Total Expenditures for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Dollars in Millions) Change From 2019-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Actual Estimated Proposed Amount Percent Adult institutions $11,102 $11,676 $11,956 $280 2% Adult parole 689 750 765 15 2 Administration 556 589 614 25 4 Division of Juvenile Justicea 200 245 — -245 -100 Board of Parole Hearings 51 60 60 -1 -1 Totals $12,597 $13,320 $13,395 $75 0.6% a Beginning in 2020-21, the Division of Juvenile Justice within CDCR will become a separate department—the Department of Youth and Community Restoration—under the Health and Human Services Agency. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Governor’s Proposal Proposition 57, which is partially offset by various increased costs, such as parole-related costs . Net Reduction in Population Funding for Budget Adjustments Will Be Updated in May. Current and Budget Years. The Governor’s As a part of the May Revise, the administration January budget plan for 2020-21 proposes will update these budget requests based on a net decrease of $54 .6 million in the current updated population projections . In addition, the year and a net decrease of $29 .5 million in the administration indicates that it plans to adjust the budget year related to projected changes in the projections and associated budget requests to overall population of adult offenders and various account for the estimated effects of two policy subpopulations (such as inmates housed in changes: (1) Chapter 590 of 2019 (SB 136, contract facilities and sex offenders on parole) . Wiener), which eliminates a one-year sentence The current-year net decrease in costs is primarily enhancement for prior offenses in certain cases and due to a larger than anticipated reduction in the (2) a planned regulatory change that will advance use of contract beds and the number of offenders certain inmates’ release consideration dates when housed in state-operated prisons relative to what they earn credits for certain significant educational was assumed in the 2019-20 Budget Act . This achievements . decrease in cost is partially offset by projected costs, primarily due to increases in parole-related Recommendation costs relative to what was assumed in the 2019-20 Budget Act . The budget-year net reduction in We withhold recommendation on the expenditures is primarily due to a projected administration’s adult population funding request decrease in the inmate population as a result of until the May Revision . We will continue to monitor CDCR’s populations and make recommendations Figure 6 Adult Inmate and Parolee Populations Projected to Decline Slightly 160,000 Inmate Population Parolee Population 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 (Estimated) (Proposed) www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET based on the administration’s revised population if housed in a camp than if housed elsewhere . projections and budget adjustments included in the For example, inmates serving terms for violent May Revision . offenses can earn one day off of their sentences for every day served with good behavior in a camp, CONSERVATION CAMPS while they can only earn one day off for every four days served elsewhere . In addition, inmates Between May 2019 and December 2019, are paid between $1 .45 per day and $3 .90 per the number of inmates in conservation camps day depending on their position and an additional has declined and has averaged only about $1 per hour when they are engaged in firefighting 2,900 inmates, despite having the capacity work . This is significantly higher than most other for about 4,600 inmates. Given the reduction inmate jobs, which generally pay between $0 .08 in state costs that could likely be achieved by and $1 .00 per hour . Other aspects of camps— increasing the conservation camp population, such as the food quality and the lower-security we recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR environment—also tend to be viewed favorably by to report in spring budget hearings on (1) what inmates compared to standard prison settings . options it is considering (if any) to do so and Recent Decline in Conservation Camp (2) the feasibility of removing restrictions on Population. In recent years, CDCR has typically camp eligibility for certain low-risk inmates. housed roughly 3,500 inmates in camps, which have a capacity of about 4,600 inmates . However, Background between May 2019 and December 2019, the camp CDCR Operates Conservation Camps. population declined and has averaged only about CDCR operates 42 conservation camps located 2,900 inmates . The administration indicates that throughout the state . Inmates assigned to Proposition 57 has caused a decline in the overall conservation camps carry out fire suppression work inmate population, including the number of inmates and respond to other emergencies, such as floods eligible to be housed in camps . This is because and earthquakes . In addition, fire crews work on the measure expanded opportunities for inmates conservation projects on public lands and provide to be released earlier than otherwise—such as by labor on local community service projects . allowing CDCR to authorize additional sentencing Only Certain Inmates May Be Placed in credits . This means that inmates in camps are Camps. Inmates generally qualify for placement completing their sentences faster than CDCR in camps if CDCR has determined they (1) can can recruit eligible inmates to replace them . For be safely housed in a low-security environment, example, the administration reports that prior to the (2) can work outside a secure perimeter under effects of Proposition 57, inmates spent roughly relatively low supervision, and (3) are medically three to four years in camps on average while they fit for conservation camp work . CDCR generally now spend only roughly nine months on average . makes this determination based on various factors Governor’s Proposal including the nature of the crimes inmates are convicted of, their behavior while in prison, and The Governor’s budget assumes that CDCR’s the amount of time they have left to serve on their 42 conservation camps will house an average daily sentence . For example, CDCR excludes from population of 2,900 inmates in 2020-21 . camps inmates (1) convicted of specific crimes, Assessment including sex offenses; (2) who have more than five years left to serve; and (3) who are wanted Increased Utilization of Camp Beds Could by outside law enforcement agencies on other Reduce State Costs. Under the Governor’s charges . proposal, 37 percent of camp beds would be CDCR Offers Various Incentives for Inmates vacant . To the extent the state could fill a greater to Seek Placement in Camps. Inmates can portion of these beds, it could likely reduce costs in generally earn time off of their prison term faster multiple ways . 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET • Decreased Use of Contract Prison population without jeopardizing public safety . Beds. The state currently can only house a Specifically, we recommended CDCR create limited number of inmates in state-owned processes for allowing low-risk sex offenders, and operated prisons due to a federal inmates with more than five years left to serve, court-ordered population cap . As such, and inmates wanted by another law enforcement the state houses some inmates outside of agency on minor charges into camps . (For more such prisons, including in contract prisons information, see our report Improving California’s and conservation camps . To the extent the Prison Inmate Classification System .) state can increase the number of inmates in Recommendation conservation camps, it can reduce the number of inmates housed in contract prison beds, In view of the above, we recommend that the which cost about $18,000 more annually per Legislature require CDCR to report in spring budget bed than a camp bed . hearings on what options it is considering (if any) • Reduced Inmate Population. As mentioned to increase the camp population and a time line for above, inmates housed in camps can implementing such options . We further recommend generally earn time off of their prison sentence the Legislature have CDCR report on the feasibility faster than if housed elsewhere . Accordingly, of removing restrictions on camp eligibility for placing additional inmates in camps would certain inmates, such as inmates with more than generally allow those inmates to be released five years left to serve . The above information earlier . In turn, this would reduce the state would allow the Legislature to consider whether it prison population and state costs . wants to direct the department to take any of these • Potentially Reduced Wildfire Mitigation steps in order to increase the camp population . Costs. When insufficient inmate crews are available, the state must use other crews— CORRECTIONAL STAFF TRAINING such as those formed by employees of federal AND JOB SHADOWING agencies or private companies—which can increase costs . Accordingly, increasing the The Governor’s budget includes a camp population, which would increase the total of $21.4 million (General Fund) in number of inmates available to support state 2020-21 to implement various initiatives to wildfire fighting efforts, could reduce the need improve correctional staff training, such as to rely on more costly crews . a facility for hands-on officer training and job shadowing program. While the various If the state could increase the camp population training initiatives proposed by the Governor by about 600 inmates—returning it to its generally appear worthwhile, we recommend roughly 3,500 inmate level prior to the effects that the Legislature reject 42 of the requested of Proposition 57—we estimate that the total 85 positions and associated funding because reduction in state costs could be in the low tens of they have not been fully justified. Accordingly, millions of dollars annually . we recommend reducing the Governor’s State Has Various Alternatives to Increase proposal by $6.7 million. We also recommend Camp Population. The state could provide greater requiring the administration to provide an incentives for inmates to participate in camps, such annual report on training outcomes that could as by giving them increased pay . Alternatively, the be impacted by the initiatives. state could expand inmate eligibility for camps . In a recent report, we identified cases where CDCR’s Background existing eligibility criteria seem to be unnecessarily CDCR Correctional Training. CDCR operates excluding certain populations of inmates from a 13 week correctional officer academy at the camps, as well as presented options for removing Richard A . McGee Correctional Training Center these restrictions in ways that increase the camp in Galt . At the academy, cadets learn the basic www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET practices of a correctional officer—such as this is necessary to ensure that correctional officers how to search inmate property—in a largely do not start their jobs lacking key experiences classroom-based setting . Afterward, graduates are that are currently not available at the academy . assigned to prisons and begin work as correctional According to CDCR, providing this type of training officers . will improve inmate and staff safety and morale The Commission on Correctional Peace Officer as well as reduce unnecessary use of force and Standards and Training (CPOST) is statutorily related litigation . The Governor’s budget includes responsible for developing, approving, and $8 .2 million and 17 positions in 2020-21 for the monitoring standards for the selection and training new training facility . Under the proposal, the level of of correctional officers and supervisory staff, as resources would fluctuate until reaching $7 .6 million well as monitoring CDCR’s design and delivery and 48 positions in 2023-24 and annually of staff training . CPOST is comprised of six thereafter . These 48 positions would include members, three appointed by CDCR to represent 28 instructional sergeants, 16 maintenance staff, the department’s management and three appointed and 1 sergeant to provide perimeter security . by the Governor to represent the members of the Job Shadowing Program for New Correctional California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association Officers ($11.5 Million). The department proposes (the union representing CDCR correctional staff) . to require new correctional officers to shadow The 2019-20 budget includes $1 .3 million from the experienced officers for three weeks before the new General Fund for CPOST and $83 million from the officers are placed in their permanent assignments . General Fund for CDCR to deliver training to peace The Governor’s budget provides a total of officers . $11 .5 million in ongoing resources for the program . This amount includes (1) $5 .2 million to pay the Governor’s Proposal new officers’ salaries during these three weeks and The Governor’s budget includes a total of (2) $6 .3 million to support 35 correctional sergeant $21 .4 million (General Fund) and 54 positions in positions (one per prison) . These sergeants would 2020-21 to (1) renovate and staff a facility to be coordinate the new job shadowing program and used for hands-on officer training, (2) implement perform various other duties related to staff training a job shadowing program for new correctional that the department indicates have grown in recent officers, (3) provide additional staff for CPOST, and years beyond a level that can be accommodated by (4) increase training for correctional counselors . existing staff . (Under the proposal, the funding would generally Additional CPOST Staff ($524,000). The decrease and the positions would increase until Governor’s budget provides $524,000 in 2020-21 reaching $19 .8 million and 85 positions in 2023-24 (decreasing to $462,000 annually beginning and annually thereafter .) in 2021-22) for CPOST to add two new New Facility for Hands-On Training supervisor-level positions . CPOST indicates that ($8.2 Million). Under the Governor’s proposal, without these positions, it cannot effectively provide CDCR would convert a former prison located oversight of standards and training for CDCR’s in Stockton into a facility to provide hands-on management and supervisory positions . According training to cadets on topics such as transportation to CPOST, the additional staff would allow it to of inmates, contraband surveillance, and escape better monitor and evaluate outcomes associated prevention . The department also plans to offer a with increased staff training, such as use of workers new training called “Day in the Life .” At the time compensation, employee attrition, and morale . of this analysis, however, CDCR was not able to Additional Training for Correctional provide information on the specific topics that Counselors ($1.2 Million). Correctional counselors this training would cover . The training would be compile and maintain information about inmates— integrated into the 13 week academy, allowing such as their criminal and medical histories—and cadets to receive a combination of classroom and assist with assigning inmates to appropriate hands-on training . The department indicates that housing settings and rehabilitation programs . 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET The Governor’s budget proposes $1 .2 million inmates . For example, given that no inmates in 2020-21 (decreasing to $312,000 annually are housed in the new facility’s cells, it is in 2021-22) for CDCR to provide training to unclear why the department could not bring correctional counselors related to communication a locksmith from one of its other institutions and case management skills . The department to fix locks when needed . Furthermore, the reports that this is necessary as current training for new facility would not need the extensive these staff is focused on knowledge of department infrastructure and equipment associated policies and regulations but lacks sufficient training with an operational prison—including on interpersonal communication, which is an industrial kitchens and busses . Accordingly, important element of their work . it is not clear that there would be enough infrastructure and equipment on site to Assessment justify all of the requested maintenance staff . Portions of Requested Funding Are Not We think that one chief engineer, one lead Fully Justified. We find that efforts to integrate custodian, and two groundskeepers would hands-on training into the academy, implement a be a more reasonable maintenance staffing job shadowing program for new officers, provide package for the proposed training center . additional staff for CPOST, and expand training • Outside Patrol Sergeant at New Training for correctional counselors appear reasonable and Facility. The proposal includes a sergeant worthwhile . However, the following portions of the position to perform various security functions, requested funding have not been fully justified: including processing staff and visitors into and out of the facility, monitoring vehicles, and • Instructors for Day in the Life Training. observing video surveillance monitors . It is One of the 19 trainings that CDCR plans to unclear why a facility with no inmates present offer at the new facility—called Day in The would need this level of security . Life—would drive one-quarter of the workload • Portion of New Prison-Based Sergeants. for the 28 new instructional sergeants The department requests 35 sergeant requested for the facility . However, at the positions to perform various duties related time of publication, the department had to staff training . The department provided not explained what this course would entail information showing that there is sufficient and why it believes its benefits justify seven new workload related to managing the dedicated sergeant positions at a total cost of proposed job shadowing program to justify $1 .3 million annually . 13 of the 35 proposed staff . According to • Maintenance Staff at New Training Facility. CDCR, the remaining 22 proposed positions The proposal includes 16 maintenance would accommodate workload that existing positions for the new facility—one-third of the staff are unable to complete in a timely total staffing package proposed for the facility . manner due to other workload priorities . For This includes a locksmith, heavy equipment example, CDCR indicates that employee mechanic, three stationary engineers orientations are often not provided until after (responsible for maintaining electrical and new employees have been working for several mechanical systems), three maintenance months . However, the department has not mechanics (responsible for repairing plumbing, been able to provide adequate information electrical systems, and various pieces of to justify the additional 22 positions . This equipment such as locks), one plumber, and information includes: (1) data identifying the one electrician . While some maintenance staff specific workload being delayed and the would be necessary, at the time of this report, extent to which it is delayed, (2) the impacts the department had not explained why it of the delayed workload, (3) detailed analysis needs 16 maintenance staff at a facility that is demonstrating that the 22 requested positions not a 24-hour institution and does not house are needed to complete this workload in a www.lao.ca.gov 21 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET timely manner, and (4) alternatives that the Approve CPOST Funding but Require Report department considered for accommodating on Outcomes of Training. We recommend that the identified workload . the Legislature approve the requested resources Unclear How Legislature Would Be Informed for CPOST as the additional positions would better of Training Outcomes. With the requested new position CPOST to meet its Legislative mandates . supervisory staff, CPOST reports that it would be In addition, we recommend that the Legislature better able to monitor metrics that it expects to be pass budget trailer legislation requiring an annual impacted by these training initiatives . This added report from CPOST beginning July 1, 2021 on data collection capacity would be beneficial, but the correctional training provided by CDCR . This we note that the proposal did not include any report should include data on relevant outcomes requirement that the Legislature be kept regularly that could be impacted by the improvements to informed of the findings . CDCR training—including the number of workers’ compensation claims, use of sick leave, transfer Recommendations and attrition rates, employee morale, the number of inmate appeals, use of force incidents, and lawsuits Reject Unjustified Portions of New Training brought against the department . The report should Center and Job Shadowing Program. In light also include the conclusions CPOST draws from of the concerns raised above, we recommend the data and its plans to address any concerns or the Legislature reject the following portions of the challenges identified . This information would help resources requested for the new training center the Legislature more effectively provide oversight of and job shadowing program that have not been officer standards and training . justified: Approve Funding to Increase Training for • Instructors for Day in the Life Training. Correctional Counselors. We recommend that We recommend that the Legislature reject the Legislature approve the proposal to increase the seven sergeant positions and associated correctional counselor training given that the $1 .3 million in funding for the Day in the Life objective and funding amount associated with the training given that CDCR has not explained proposed training appear reasonable . what this course would entail or why its benefits would justify its cost . APPLYING CREDITS TO ADVANCE • Portion of Maintenance Staff. We YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE recommend that the Legislature reject 12 of HEARINGS the proposed 16 maintenance positions as they do not appear necessary . This would We recommend that the Legislature reduce reduce the funding needed for the training the proposed amount by $258,000 in 2021-22 center by $1 .2 million once the training center and $516,000 in 2022-23 to account for a more is fully operational . reasonable estimate of ongoing workload. • Perimeter Security Sergeant. We recommend that the Legislature reject the Background perimeter security sergeant position and Youth Offender Parole Process. State law associated $180,000 in ongoing funding as it generally allows inmates who were under the age is unclear why the new training center would of 26 when they committed their offense to be need this level of security . considered by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) • Portion of Prison-Based Sergeants. We for release earlier than otherwise . For example, an recommend that the Legislature reject the inmate who received a 30 year sentence for a crime 22 prison-based sergeants and associated the inmate committed at age 25 is considered for $4 million in ongoing funding given that CDCR release after 15 years—as long as the inmate does has not provided an analysis demonstrating not have certain disqualifying case factors, such the need for these positions . as being sentenced to life without the possibility 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET of parole . The earliest date that such inmates are Proposal Likely Overestimates eligible for release under this process is known as Ongoing Costs their youth parole eligible date (YPED) . In estimating the case records staff time needed Sentencing Credits and YPEDs. CDCR to process YPED changes on an ongoing basis, generally allows inmates to reduce their prison the proposal assumes that each of the roughly terms by earning credits for participating in 20,000 inmates eligible for the youth offender rehabilitation programs and maintaining good parole process will earn two EMCs per year . In behavior . For example, inmates can earn other words, the proposal assumes that each of Educational Merit Credits (EMC), which give them these inmates will earn a high school, college, between 90 and 180 days off their prison term or post-graduate degree or gain alcohol and when they (1) earn high school, associate, bachelor, drug counselor certification two times per year, or post-graduate degrees or (2) become a certified every year while they are incarcerated . Under this alcohol and drug counselor . assumption, youth offenders alone would earn a Currently, credits earned by inmates eligible for total of roughly 40,000 EMCs per year . We find the youth offender parole process do not advance this highly implausible given that in 2018-19 only their YPEDs . For example, an inmate with a 30 year about 43,000 inmates were enrolled in an academic sentence and a YPED of 15 years who earned programs and only about 3,500 completed a high a total of one year in credits would still not be school equivalency or educational degree and considered for release by BPH until after serving only a portion of these inmates are eligible for 15 years . However, if not released by BPH, the the youth offender parole process . In addition, inmate would be released after 29 years due to the the department is only budgeted to enable about impact of the credits . 430 inmates per year to earn drug and alcohol Chapter 577 of 2019 (AB 965, Stone), however, counselor certifications . Accordingly, we estimate authorizes CDCR to implement regulations allowing that the number of EMCs earned annually by all inmates to advance their YPEDs for credits they inmates is around 4,000, or 10 percent of what the earn . CDCR indicates it will use this authority to proposal assumes would be earned by inmates allow inmates to advance their YPEDs by earning eligible for the youth offender parole process alone . EMCs beginning on January 1, 2022 . This change While it’s unclear how many EMCs are earned will apply retroactively to EMCs earned since by inmates eligible for the youth offender parole August 1, 2017 when EMCs were first introduced . process annually, making the generous assumption Governor’s Proposal that they earn half of all EMCs, CDCR would only need to process about 2,000 YPED changes per The Governor’s budget requests one, two-year, year . Based on this assumption, the department limited-term position and $504,000 from the would need less resources than requested in the General Fund in 2020-21 for CDCR to develop Governor’s budget—$258,000 less in 2021-22 and processes and make information technology $516,000 less annually thereafter . upgrades needed to apply EMCs to YPEDs in its data systems . Under the proposal, the proposed Recommendation funding would increase to $847,000 in 2021-22 In light of the above, we recommend that the and $796,000 in 2022-23 and each year thereafter Legislature reduce the Governor’s proposal by primarily for case records staff to (1) review all $258,000 in 2021-22 and $516,000 in 2022-23 roughly 20,000 inmates eligible for the youth and ongoing to account for a more reasonable offender parole process for retroactive application assumption about the number of YPED changes of EMCs and (2) process YPED changes on an that will need to be processed on an ongoing basis . ongoing basis when they earn EMCs . www.lao.ca.gov 23 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET EXONERATED HOUSING Administration (FHA) loan limits in the area the home is located in . ASSISTANCE Governor’s Proposal In order to pay for exonerated individuals’ housing costs, the Governor’s budget proposes In order to pay for exonerated individuals’ $621,000 from the General Fund in 2020-21— housing costs, the Governor’s budget proposes increasing to $1.6 million annually in 2023-24. $621,000 from the General Fund in 2020-21— We recommend approving only a portion of this increasing to $1 .6 million annually in 2023-24 . The funding as the amount requested assumes a proposed level of funding is based on assumptions substantial increase in the number of individuals that there will be ten individuals exonerated per exonerated and a higher level of housing costs year and that, in addition to the required one-time than would likely be necessary. Using data on payments of $5,000, each of these individuals recently exonerated individuals and county-level would receive $3,710 per month for housing housing costs, we estimate that the cost to assistance for four years . According to the implement the proposal would not exceed administration, the $3,710 per month for housing $600,000 at full implementation. assistance is based on the fair market rent for three individuals who were recently exonerated and live in Background areas determined by the administration to be “high Exonerated Individuals. An individual who cost .” The administration states that the underlying has been convicted of a crime is considered to rationale for taking this approach is because the be exonerated under certain circumstances . For majority of inmates are from high cost counties . example, a person is considered to be exonerated Proposal Likely Overstates Costs if (1) the person is pardoned by the Governor on the basis that the person is innocent, (2) a court We find that implementing this program will finds that the person did not commit the crime, likely cost substantially less than the amount or (3) the conviction is reversed due to insufficient requested by the administration . This is because evidence . Since 2015, an average of five individuals the administration’s assumptions likely overstate have been exonerated annually . the number of individuals who will be exonerated Recent Legislation Requires Housing and the amount of assistance those individuals will Assistance for Exonerated Individuals. need . Chapter 435 of 2019 (AB 701, Weber) requires As indicated above, the administration assumes CDCR to provide housing assistance to exonerated there will be ten individuals exonerated per year individuals released from state custody . Upon on an ongoing basis . This is double the average release, exonerated individuals are entitled to annual number of individuals who have been a one-time payment of $5,000 to be used for exonerated since 2015 . At the time of this analysis, housing, such as hotel costs or a security deposit . the administration has not provided any information In addition, exonerated individuals are entitled to justify this assumption . In addition, we think it is to additional financial support to cover at least a unlikely that each exonerated individual would need portion of their housing costs for up to four years . $3,170 in monthly housing assistance . As noted The total amount of assistance provided to an earlier, exonerated individuals would only be eligible individual depends on their housing arrangement . for the actual cost of rent or up to 125 percent of If the individual chooses to rent, the additional fair market rent or payments toward mortgages of financial support would be capped at 125 percent up to 125 percent of FHA loan limits in the area of fair market rent as calculated by the U .S . the home is located . Using HUD and FHA data for Department of Housing and Urban Development the counties of recently exonerated individuals, (HUD) . Alternatively, the individual could request we estimate that, on average, exonerees would financial assistance for the cost of mortgage be eligible for about $2,350 in rental assistance or payments up to 125 percent of the Federal Housing $2,200 in mortgage assistance per month . 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Recommendation 2020 and provide an additional 100 beds . The 2019-20 Budget Act provides about $32 million Reduce Proposed Funding Level. Assuming for all MCRP facilities at an average cost of five individuals are exonerated annually and that about $50,000 per bed (including contract and these individuals typically live in locations similar administrative costs) . to the recently exonerated population, we estimate Evaluation of MCRP’s Effectiveness that this housing assistance program would not Forthcoming. The MCRP has not been evaluated exceed $600,000 in costs at full implementation . in terms of its cost-effectiveness in reducing We note that this estimate is more closely aligned recidivism relative to standard prison environments . with the fiscal analysis of Chapter 435 prepared However, the administration reports that such an by both the Assembly and Senate Appropriations evaluation is now underway at Stanford University . Committees . Accordingly, we recommend that the The department expects to receive the results of Legislature reduce the level of funding proposed the study by December 2020 . by the Governor to pay for exonerated individuals housing costs . Specifically, we recommend the Governor’s Proposal Legislature only approve $300,000 in 2020-21 ($450,000 in 2021-22 and increasing to $600,000 Increased Funding to Support Additional annually in 2022-23) . We estimate that this would Facility. The administration proposes to expand be more than sufficient to cover one-time payments MCRP by contracting with an 80 to 100 bed facility of $5,000 and four years of housing assistance for in Alameda County that would be activated in June exonerated individuals . 2021 . The Governor’s budget for 2020-21 includes about $280,000 from the General Fund to begin operating the new facility . Once fully activated in EXPANSION OF THE MALE 2022-23, the facility would cost a total of roughly COMMUNITY REENTRY PROGRAM $6 million annually . Until the results of the current evaluation of Assessment the Male Community Reentry Program (MCRP) are available in December 2020, we recommend Premature to Expand Program Before that the Legislature not expand the program as Evaluation Is Complete . As mentioned above, proposed by the Governor. an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of MCRP is expected to be completed in December Background 2020 . The results of the evaluation would help the Legislature assess whether MCRP generates Overview of MCRP. Under MCRP, CDCR a sufficiently large reduction in recidivism to contracts with residential facilities in the community justify its higher cost relative to standard prison to provide rehabilitative programming (such as environments . To the extent that the evaluation educational services, substance use disorder shows that MCRP is not cost-effective, the treatment, job training, and computer skills Legislature could consider redirecting the existing workshops) to male inmates who are within one funding for the program to other General Fund year of completing their sentence . The program priorities—including other rehabilitation programs is voluntary and generally admits inmates if they that would achieve greater reductions in recidivism . meet certain criteria (such as not posing an escape For example, with the existing MCRP funding, risk or not being at high risk to reoffend violently) . we estimate for illustrative purposes that CDCR Currently, CDCR contracts with six facilities—three could instead provide career technical education— in Los Angeles County and one each in Kern, consisting of programs that typically cost about a Butte, and San Diego Counties—that provide a few thousand dollars per inmate and have been total of 662 beds . The department is in the process shown elsewhere to reduce recidivism—to roughly of contracting with a seventh facility in Riverside 10,000 inmates annually—nearly ten times the County, which is expected to be activated in June www.lao.ca.gov 25 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET number that would be treated annually through generally are responsible for paying for tuition, MCRP . fees, textbooks, and any other materials required for the courses . However, inmates may be eligible Recommendation for the Board of Governor’s fee waiver program Reject Proposed Expansion. Until the (also known as the California College Promise completion of the current evaluation of MCRP, Grant) which waives community college enrollment we recommend that the Legislature not expand fees for students with financial need . In addition, the program and, thus, reject the Governor’s California State University’s Los Angeles Campus proposal . Given that the results of the evaluation (CSULA) offers a bachelor’s degree granting are expected to be available in December 2020, program at California State Prison, Los Angeles the Legislature could consider changes to the County . This program is designed to provide program—including possible expansion—as part of in-person instruction for the last two years of its deliberations on the 2021-22 budget . college to up to 50 inmates at no cost to the inmates . The program was first started in 2016 and is funded through private grants . Most recently, EXPANSION OF HIGHER in June 2019, it was awarded a three-year grant EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES totaling $750,000 through the Andrew W . Mellon Foundation . The Governor proposes $1.8 million General Fund in 2020-21 (increasing to $3.5 million About 15,000 Inmates Enrolled in College annually in 2021-22) for CDCR to partner with Courses. CDCR reports that about 1,300 students five California State University (CSU) campuses have associate’s degrees and 15,000 inmates to provide in-person instruction for the final two (about 12 percent of the total inmate population) years of a bachelor’s degree program for up to are enrolled in college courses . About 6,500 of 350 inmates. While expanding higher education these inmates are enrolled in in-person courses opportunities for inmates could be promising, provided by local community colleges, while we find that the administration needs to the remaining 8,500 students are enrolled in (1) coordinate with decision makers within the correspondence courses . CSU system to answer key questions about the Governor’s Proposal structure of the program and (2) provide more refined estimates of the resource requirements. The administration proposes $1 .8 million General Until the outcomes of these steps are shared, Fund in 2020-21 (increasing to $3 .5 million annually it would be difficult for the Legislature to in 2021-22) for CDCR to partner with five CSU determine if the program is likely to be campuses to provide in-person instruction for the successfully implemented and if establishing final two years of a bachelor’s degree program for the program would be the most cost-effective up to 350 inmates at seven prisons beginning in fall approach for expanding inmate rehabilitation 2020 . The state would cover all costs associated services. with the program (such as textbooks) but inmates would be expected to have attained an associate’s Background degree that would provide the necessary prerequisites before enrollment . Inmates Have Some Access to Post-Secondary Education. Inmates generally Assessment have access to correspondence courses through various colleges that can lead to academic Expanding Higher Education Is Promising… degrees . Inmates also have access to associate’s The Governor’s proposal to expand access to degree granting programs with in-person courses higher education opportunities to inmates is provided by local community colleges at 34 of promising . When such programs are well-designed the 35 prisons . Inmates enrolled in these courses and implemented effectively, various studies show 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET that education—including higher education—can Director of Admissions, and the Vice President of reduce the number of offenders who recidivate (or Enrollment at each of the five participating CSU reoffend) and that the resulting correctional savings campuses . Because these positions currently can more than offset their costs . support over 100,000 students, it seems unlikely ...But Key Coordination Has Not Occurred… that they would spend a significant amount of time While the proposal is promising, the department on services for the 350 inmates who could be needs to coordinate extensively with CSU to enrolled in this program at full implementation . The successfully implement it . For example, CDCR requested funding also includes a portion of the and CSU would need to collaborate to determine: salaries for financial aid analysts and the Director (1) which majors would be offered, (2) which of Financial Aid at each CSU campus despite the inmates would be eligible for enrollment, (3) what fact that the inmates would not receive financial aid specific courses and services (such as tutoring, as their costs would be covered by CDCR . We also academic counseling, and career advising) would note that while the proposal requests General Fund be offered to ensure inmates can successfully to cover the entire estimated cost of the program, complete bachelor’s degrees, (4) which services there could be resources that could offset the CSU would be responsible to provide and which General Fund costs of the program—such as the ones CDCR would provide, and (5) how and when grant awarded to CSULA in June 2019 that would the services and courses would be provided to not expire until June 2022 . inmates . Recommendation However, when developing this proposal, CDCR did not coordinate with key CSU organizations and Withhold Action Pending Coordination With agencies—such as the Chancellor’s Office and CSU System and Refinement of Proposal. We Academic Senate, which approve all new programs find that the administration needs to (1) coordinate and curriculum . This is problematic as these with decision makers within the CSU system to decision makers would be critical in determining answer key questions about the structure of the the policies and structure necessary to successfully program and (2) provide more refined estimates of implement the program . Accordingly, the questions the resource requirements . Until the outcomes of above remain unanswered . For example, because these steps are shared, it would be difficult for the the department has not coordinated with the Legislature to determine if the program is likely to Academic Senate, it is unclear what specific be successfully implemented and if establishing courses inmates would need to have completed to the program would be the most cost-effective successfully enroll in and complete the program or approach for expanding inmate rehabilitation who would make this determination . services . Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature withhold action on this proposal and …And Resource Request Needs to Be direct the administration to coordinate with the CSU Refined. The requested resources for the program system to provide updates on the structure and will likely need to be refined once it is clear how the necessary resources for the program no later than program would be structured and what services the May Revision . If the administration is unable would be provided . This is because there are to provide sufficient information on the program’s significant questions about whether the level of structure and the resources necessary to support funding proposed for the program is reasonable . the program by the May Revision, we recommend For example, it is unclear why the requested that the Legislature reject the proposal . We note funding per institution is double the amount of that, if additional time is needed, the administration grant funding provided to CSULA for the existing could return with a more fully formed proposal next program . In addition, the proposal includes year . $900,000 (27 percent of the requested funding) to cover about 5 percent of the salaries for several administrative positions including the Provost, the www.lao.ca.gov 27 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET TECHNOLOGY FOR INMATES at least twice a week . In addition, CDCR provides technology-based education such as computer PARTICIPATING IN ACADEMIC software designed to help inmates prepare for the PROGRAMS high school equivalency exam, as well as peer mentors to help inmates develop basic literacy While the Governor’s proposal to provide skills . inmates with thin-client laptops and other academic technologies could improve Governor’s Proposal educational attainment, the cost-effectiveness of the program is unclear—particularly given The Governor’s budget proposes 38 positions the high expense relative to existing academic and $27 million General Fund in 2020-21 for programs in CDCR. Accordingly, we recommend CDCR to provide inmates participating in academic that the Legislature approve the proposal but programming with thin-client laptops (laptops adopt budget trailer legislation requiring the with only specific department-approved software administration to contract with an independent installed) and implement various other technologies researcher to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intended to improve inmate educational outcomes . the program at improving inmate educational (Following equipment purchases, the amount of attainment relative to traditional classroom funding would generally decrease to $18 million based instruction. annually beginning in 2024-25 .) These technologies would include a secure online portal where Background students could access and download academic materials and video conferencing equipment that Education and Literacy Are Core Parts of would potentially be used to allow instructors CDCR’s Rehabilitation Focus. Under current to teach more students than would be possible state law, CDCR is required to improve inmate in a traditional classroom environment . The literacy and educational attainment . Improving requested staffing would provide support for these inmate literacy and educational attainment is technologies . important because research shows that education programs, when appropriately implemented, are Program Is Promising, but Cost a cost-effective method of reducing recidivism . Effectiveness Unclear Moreover, it is often necessary for inmates to improve their literacy in order to be able to The laptops and other technologies included effectively participate in other rehabilitation in the Governor’s proposal would likely expand programs while in prison, such as vocational or access to academic materials . This could improve cognitive behavioral therapy programs . the productivity of inmates enrolled in academic CDCR Provides Both Classroom- and programming and lead to more rapid gains in Nonclassroom-Based Education. The 2019-20 literacy and other educational outcomes . We Budget Act provided about $172 million (mostly also note that these technologies could allow from the General Fund) to CDCR for various inmate the department to further expand academic academic education programs . Most of this funding programs in prisons that have difficulty recruiting is used to support classroom based education . instructors by allowing instructors at other prisons However the department has also taken steps to lead courses remotely . In addition, through the to provide educational opportunities outside of opportunity to use laptops, inmates would improve traditional classroom instruction . For example, their familiarity with computers . This could improve the department operates the Voluntary Education their employability and ability to function in the Program, which is designed to supplement community upon release . classroom-based education or to provide access However, while the program could have a to education when a classroom-based option is number of benefits, it is unclear if it would be not available . Instructors in this program work cost-effective relative other academic programs, with inmate students offering in-person support particularly because of its relative expense . We note 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET that the requested funding for 2020-21 represents inmates to maximize the use of medication a 16 percent increase in CDCR’s current budget rooms that have been completed or approved for academic education . With this funding, we for construction, and (4) whether any of the estimate for illustrative purposes that CDCR could projects are at prisons likely to be closed. instead hire over 200 additional instructors capable Background of providing classroom-based literacy instruction to roughly 5,500 inmates annually . Medication Rooms. Every housing unit within a prison has to have access to a medication room Recommendations to ensure that necessary medication is provided Approve Proposal but Require Reporting to inmates . Most inmates collect medications on Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness. We from licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) through pill recommend the Legislature approve the Governor’s windows at medication distribution rooms (MDRs) proposal to provide inmates with thin-client at various locations throughout the prison . Most laptops and other academic technologies as it general population inmates leave their housing could improve inmate academic achievement . unit to get their medication at an MDR that serves However, given the expense of the program, multiple housing units . In many cases, inmates we recommend the Legislature adopt budget line up outside to receive their medication from trailer legislation requiring CDCR to contract an MDR . Some inmates, however, receive their with an external researcher to evaluate the medication from MDRs that are located within their cost-effectiveness of the program at improving housing unit . For example, inmates in the enhanced inmate educational attainment relative to traditional outpatient program (EOP)—which is the highest classroom-based instruction . We estimate that level of outpatient mental health care that CDCR costs for the external evaluation would be around offers—have MDRs located within their housing a few hundred thousand dollars . We recommend unit . This is to ensure that their mental health that the Legislature require the department to condition does not interfere with their ability to provide the evaluation no later than January 10, access medication . 2024 to give the department time to fully implement In addition, some inmates need to have an LVN the program . This evaluation would allow the deliver medication directly to their cell because of Legislature to determine whether the program is security or health reasons . This includes inmates in sufficiently successful given its expense . To the restricted housing, which are units that temporarily extent it is not, the Legislature could consider house inmates who have committed a serious redirecting the funding for the program to other violation or whose presence in a less restricted General Fund priorities—including other academic environment poses a threat to themselves or programs that would achieve greater improvements others . In general, Security Housing Units (SHU) in inmate educational attainment . are used for longer-term restricted housing placements, while Administrative Segregation Units MEDICATION ROOM PROJECTS (ASU) are used for shorter-term placements . While in these units, inmates’ freedom of movement In order for the Legislature to fully assess the and interaction with other inmates is substantially Governor’s proposal to construct medication restricted . For these restricted housing units, LVNs rooms at 13 prisons and determine the extent prepare medications in a medication preparation to which they are necessary, we recommend room (MPR) and then go to individual inmates’ requiring CDCR to report at spring budget cells with a cart that holds the medications being hearings on its medication room needs that distributed . Given that each prison typically serves takes into account (1) the completion of the multiple types of inmates at different housing units medication rooms previously approved by the throughout the facility, many prisons have various Legislature, (2) projected changes in the inmate types of medication rooms . population, (3) the department’s plan for moving www.lao.ca.gov 29 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Medication Room Improvements. Since being and be completed by July 2023 . Each of these appointed by the federal court to take control over projects is comprised of subprojects that addresses the direct management of the state’s prison medical the medication room needs at a particular housing care system, the Receiver has identified various unit within a prison . Specifically, these subprojects shortcomings with CDCR’s medication rooms . For fall into two categories: example, the Receiver found that various prisons • Additional MDRs. Seven prisons include did not have the appropriate types of medication subprojects to construct a total of 13 rooms for certain types of inmates they house . additional MDRs . Of these, seven MDRs are For example, some prisons with EOP units lacked for housing units that serve EOP inmates but in-unit MDRs . The Receiver also found that did not have MDRs inside them . Three of the some prisons have medication rooms that force MDRs are for a prison that has a reported inmates to wait in line outside without adequate need for additional medication rooms due to a protection from inclement weather . As a result, large number of non-EOP inmates with mental since 2007-08 the Legislature has approved various health needs . The remaining three MDRs are capital projects to improve the medication rooms at for housing units designated to serve general 30 prisons in two phases . Specifically: population inmates but lack MDRs . • Phase I of Medication Room Improvements. • Additional MPRs. Seven prisons include In 2007-08, the Legislature approved subprojects to construct a total of eight $52 .2 million for capital projects to improve additional MPRs . These prisons have a total the medication rooms at 22 prisons . Most of eight ASU units that were built without of these projects have been completed but MPRs . According to the department, these construction is currently on hold at three subprojects should have been included in the facilities pending the completion of other initial funding provided in 2007-08, but were nearby construction projects . unintentionally omitted . • Phase II of Medication Room Improvements. In 2018-19, the Legislature Need for Additional Medication approved preliminary plans for additional Rooms Remains Unclear medication room projects at 14 prisons . At the time, the total cost of these projects was Information Lacking on Total Inmates That $38 .6 million and the projects were expected Will Be Served. At the time of this analysis, to be completed by November 2022 . CDCR was not able to provide information on the However, the administration has discontinued total number of inmates that will be served once one of these project as well as parts of all of the 22 phase I medication room projects others, including five subprojects to construct that were previously approved by the Legislature MDRs for EOP units . These subprojects are completed . The absence of such information were discontinued as the units were no makes it difficult to determine the extent to which longer needed to house EOP inmates due to the Governor’s proposed projects for phase II are reductions in the EOP population . necessary . For example, it might be possible for the EOP inmates in units that would receive phase II MDRs to be moved to units that already have or will Governor’s Proposal have appropriate MDRs when the phase I projects Funding for the Construction of Additional are complete, assuming there are not factors—such Medication Rooms. The Governor’s budget as security or health concerns—that would make proposes $31 .7 million in General Fund support for such a move challenging . the construction phase of phase II medication room Projected Decline in Inmate Population. improvement projects at 13 prisons . The total cost Even if the department can show that not all of these projects is $38 .5 million . The projects are inmates can be served after phase I projects are scheduled to begin construction in January 2021 completed, it is unclear whether all of the proposed 30 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET phase II projects will be necessary by the time department’s plan for moving inmates to maximize they are completed in 2023 . This is because the use of medication rooms that have been the department’s current projections show that completed or approved for construction, and some of the inmate populations that the projects (4) whether any of the projects are at prisons likely are intended to serve are expected to decline by to be closed . This information would allow the 2023 . For example, CDCR projects that the EOP Legislature to fully assess the Governor’s proposed population will decline by 406 inmates (6 percent) . projects and determine the extent to which they This suggests that the additional medication are necessary . We recommend that the Legislature rooms proposed by the Governor to serve EOP withhold action on the Governor’s proposal pending inmates may not be necessary in a few years . It receipt and review of the above information . is also possible that the need for other proposed subprojects targeted at specific types of inmates— TELEHEALTH SERVICES BUILDING such as SHU or ASU inmates—could decline by the time they are completed, particularly since the We recommend that the Legislature reject overall inmate population is expected to decline the Governor’s proposal for a new telehealth by thousands of inmates over the next few years . services building and adopt supplemental Whether all of these projects will be necessary in report language directing the administration the future also depends on various factors, such to provide a plan by January 10, 2021 to utilize as the housing security level of the inmates that telecommuting instead. We find that allowing remain in CDCR . the use of telecommuting would have several benefits over the proposed capital outlay Impact of Potential Prison Closure. The above project, including being much less costly and uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the allowing for wider recruitment. administration intends to close a state-operated prison within the next five years, but has not Background stated which prison would be closed . Until the administration determines which prison would be Telehealth Services Used to Provide Care closed, it is difficult for the Legislature to determine to Inmates. Telehealth services allow health if the proposed medication room projects are care providers to use digital information and necessary . This is because, without a prison communication technologies—such as interactive closure plan, the Legislature is in the difficult audio and video—to provide health care services position of evaluating whether to fund projects at to patients in remote locations . Aside from the prisons that could be closed in the near future . provider being in a different location, these services are largely similar to in-person visits . CDCR Recommendations currently uses telehealth services where available to provide certain health care services to inmates . Require CDCR Provide Additional Information During a telehealth visit, an inmate is escorted to Before Taking Action. In view of the above, we a room with specialized equipment that allows recommend that the Legislature require CDCR to for two-way communication with the provider . A report at spring budget hearings on its medication medical assistant at the prison can perform tasks room needs . This information should include that require a physical presence, such as making (1) how many inmates the department will be able adjustments to the equipment or measuring the to serve with previously approved medication rooms patient’s blood pressure and other vital signs while both overall and in each category of inmates that the provider interacts with the inmate through the require a particular type of room, (2) whether overall specialized equipment . Telehealth services can inmate population projections and projections for include both telemedicine (provided by physicians) each category of inmates that require a particular and telepsychiatry (provided by psychiatrists) . type of medication room support the need for all of the proposed projects after accounting for Telehealth Services Help Alleviate Staffing housing security levels and other factors, (3) the Challenges. CDCR is currently required to comply with court orders to have at least 90 percent of its www.lao.ca.gov 31 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET physician and psychiatrist positions filled . However, an office to use the technology—could be a viable the department has frequently encountered alternative to providing office space for providers . difficulty filling these positions, often because its This is because telecommuting could: prisons are in remote locations where there are few • Allow for Wider Recruitment. Telecommuting physicians or psychiatrists . Given this challenge, could improve the department’s ability to the department plans to increase the utilization of fill positions by expanding the number of telehealth positions in order to provide health care potential recruits to include individuals who services at remote prisons—or prisons that have do not live in the Bay Area, do not want to difficulty recruiting for other reasons—using staff commute to San Quentin, and/or prefer to located near population centers where recruitment work from home . We note that many private is easier . sector telehealth employers emphasize the Existing Telehealth Resources. Currently, opportunity to work from home as a benefit to 54 physicians and 55 psychiatrists, along with their prospective employees . support staff, provide telehealth for CDCR at a total • Address Vacancy Problem Faster. While cost of about $58 million from the General Fund the administration might need to develop annually . This amount includes $800,000 for leases new procedures and/or purchase different to accommodate these staff in offices located in Elk equipment to implement telecommuting, this Grove, Rancho Cucamonga, Diamond Bar, Santa could likely be accomplished before February Ana, Fresno, and Bakersfield . In addition, 18 of 2024, when the proposed construction the 55 psychiatrists currently provide telehealth project at San Quentin would be completed . services out of San Quentin State Prison utilizing Accordingly, telecommuting would likely allow three trailers—totaling approximately 4,400 square the department to expand the number of feet—that are rented at a combined cost of telehealth providers more quickly than if they $76,200 per year . needed to wait for additional capacity to be Governor’s Proposal built . • Reduce Costs for Office Space. To the The Governor’s budget proposes $2 million from extent the department allowed existing the General Fund for preliminary plans to construct telehealth providers to telecommute it would a 12,000 square foot modular building to house potentially reduce—or eliminate—the need for 36 psychiatrists, 15 physicians, and 4 support staff telehealth office space statewide . Specifically, at San Quentin State Prison . This project would it would eliminate the need for capital replace the three trailers at the prison currently outlay projects (such as the $25 .6 million used for telehealth and provide space for additional building proposed at San Quentin) and could telehealth staff . The project would be completed in potentially reduce or eliminate the need for February 2024 and cost a total of $25 .6 million . The existing telehealth office space . administration indicates it is pursuing this project in the Bay Area to better recruit the physicians The administration has stated that there and psychiatrists who live in the region and that would be some challenges in regards to the constructing this facility at San Quentin is less implementation of telecommuting related to expensive than leasing office space in the area . technology and compliance with federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Alternatives to Constructing a New requirements intended to ensure the confidentiality Building Could Be More Beneficial and security of protected health information . However, the private sector would be subject to Telecommuting Would Likely Be Less the same challenges and already allows telehealth Expensive and Provide Several Benefits. providers to telecommute, including a number Telecommuting—an arrangement in which of companies that supply telehealth services telehealth providers work from home using in correctional settings . This suggests that the telehealth technology rather than commuting to 32 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET potential implementation challenges identified by positions filled . CDCR has taken a number of the administration can be overcome . steps to meet this target, including establishing Expanding Use of Trailers Could Also Have a residency program, providing pay differentials Benefits. Another alternative that could have for “hard-to-recruit” institutions, and expanding benefits over the Governor’s proposal would be the utilization of telepsychiatry . Through these to expand the use of trailers at San Quentin . steps, CDCR has hired a substantial number of While this alternative would have fewer benefits psychiatrists but has not yet filled 90 percent of than telecommuting, it would still have a couple the positions as required by the court order . At the advantages over the proposed project including an time of this analysis, the department had almost ability to expand capacity before February 2024 60 percent of the vacancies filled . In order to meet and reduced costs . Based on the cost estimates the 90 percent target, CDCR would need to hire an provided by the administration for the existing additional 102 psychiatrists . trailers, increasing the amount of trailer space to CDCR Uses Registry Psychiatrists Due provide 12,000 square feet would likely cost around to Vacancies. While CDCR works to fill vacant $131,000 per year—less than 1 percent of the cost civil service psychiatrist positions, the court has of the Governor’s proposed project . accepted the use of contract registry psychiatrists as a temporary solution to provide care . In 2017, Recommendation CDCR entered into a contract with a registry Reject Proposal and Direct Administration to provider for psychiatric services . The contract was Develop Alternative Plan. In view of the above, set to expire in 2019 but was extended through we recommend that the Legislature reject the April 2021 . While the funding associated with the Governor’s proposal for a new telehealth services vacant psychiatrist positions—known as vacancy building and adopt supplemental report language savings—is used to cover a large portion of the directing the administration to provide a plan by registry costs, the rates set by the contract for January 10, 2021 to utilize telecommuting instead . registry psychiatrists exceeded the available Despite requiring the department to wait for the savings . To address this funding shortfall, the state next budget cycle, this approach would likely allow provided $18 .1 million in General Fund support the department to establish additional capacity for on a two-year, limited-term basis—2018-19 telehealth much sooner than when the proposed and 2019-20—to pay for the additional registry project would be completed . psychiatrist costs . Governor’s Proposal PSYCHIATRY REGISTRY FUNDING The Governor’s budget proposes $1 .4 million in We recommend that the Legislature approve annual General Fund support to offset a portion of the Governor’s proposed funding for registry the difference between (1) the savings from vacant services on a one-time basis (rather than on psychiatrist positions and (2) the costs for registry an ongoing basis as proposed). While this psychiatrists to provide care given the vacant funding appears to be necessary in the budget positions . According to the administration, the year, the amount of funding needed beyond total difference is currently estimated to be almost 2020-21 is less clear due to the contract for $18 million, but CDCR would redirect salary savings registry psychiatrist services expiring and steps from other vacant positions to cover the difference . the administration is taking to reduce the need Assessment for registry services. New Registry Contract Would Likely Impact Background Funding Needs. As previously mentioned, the CDCR Struggles to Fill Psychiatrist Positions. current registry contract, which resulted in the As was noted earlier in this report, CDCR is under discrepancy between the vacancy savings and court order to keep 90 percent of its psychiatrist the cost of registry psychiatrists, will expire in www.lao.ca.gov 33 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET April 2021 (part way through the budget year) . At Background that time, the administration would need to put CDCR Uses Contract Medical Services When out a bid for a new contract . While there could Inmate Needs Cannot Be Met. When CDCR is continue to be a discrepancy between the savings unable to provide necessary medical services to from vacant psychiatrist positions and the cost of inmates because it lacks the needed equipment registry psychiatrists, under the new contract, the or specialist providers, the department contracts extent of any discrepancy would not be known until for these services with external providers . These after the contract is awarded . As such, it would contract medical services are used in a number be premature at this time to set aside a specific of circumstances ranging from trips to emergency amount of funding on an ongoing basis to cover departments for physical injuries to chronic medical such a discrepancy . issues that require specialized treatment . In some Registry Services Are Not a Long-Term cases, providers are brought into facilities to Solution and the Need Should Decline. Both treat inmates . However, in many cases inmates the administration and the court indicate that are transported off-site to receive care in the registry services are a temporary solution while the community, including inpatient care . department works to hire civil service psychiatrists . General Fund and Federal Medi-Cal In addition, the department is proposing to take Reimbursements Support Contract Medical additional steps to hire civil service psychiatrists Services. The 2019-20 budget includes a total of in the future, such as by seeking to further expand about $416 million for contract medical services . telepsychiatry services . Accordingly, while funding This amount includes (1) $360 .4 million in General for registry services is likely needed in the budget Fund support ($61 .9 million on a one-time basis) year, the amount of funding needed should decline and (2) $55 .4 million in reimbursement authority significantly as the administration hires more civil related to Medi-Cal, a program partially funded service psychiatrists . by the federal government that covers health Recommendation care costs for low-income families and individuals (including certain costs for inmates) . Through Approve Request on One-Time Basis. We Medi-Cal, the federal government reimburses recommend that the Legislature approve the between 50 percent and 90 percent of the cost Governor’s proposed funding for registry services of eligible off-site inpatient medical care . Typically, on a one-time basis (rather than on an ongoing off-site inpatient medical care accounts for half of basis as proposed) . While this funding appears to contract medical service expenditures . Such care be necessary in the budget year, the amount of is eligible for federal reimbursement provided that funding needed beyond 2020-21 is less clear due the inmate stays in the community for more than to the contract for registry psychiatrist services 24 hours for medical treatment and is enrolled expiring and steps the administration is taking to in Medi-Cal no later than three months after reduce the need for registry services . receiving services . Inmates are generally eligible for enrollment in Medi-Cal if their incomes are below CONTRACT MEDICAL SERVICES 138 percent of the federal poverty line . We recommend the Legislature direct CDCR Governor’s Proposal to report at budget committee hearings this The Governor’s budget for 2020-21 proposes spring on specific steps it will take to increase a total of $415 million for contract medical the amount of federal reimbursement the state services—$359 million from the General Fund and receives for contract medical services. Until the $55 .4 million in federal reimbursement authority . department presents a plan to maximize federal The proposal effectively makes ongoing the funds, we recommend the Legislature withhold $61 .9 million that was provided in the current action on the Governor’s proposed level of year on a one-time basis . According to the funding for contract medical services. 34 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET administration, it intends to propose a formula withhold action on the Governor’s proposed level of as part of the May Revision for making future funding for contract medical services . adjustments to contract medical funding . MEDICAL IMAGING EQUIPMENT Federal Reimbursement Rate Raises Questions About Level of We recommend that the Legislature approve Funding Needed the Governor’s proposal to provide $1.5 million from the General Fund in 2020-21 (increasing The Governor’s budget assumes that CDCR to $2.3 million by 2024-25) to more regularly will only be able to offset about $55 .4 million replace and repair medical imaging equipment. of contract medical expenditures with federal Given that the proposal would reduce the reimbursements—equivalent to roughly 30 percent need for inmates to be transported to offsite of the cost of inpatient medical services provided clinics, we also recommend reducing CDCR’s to inmates . However, between 50 percent and base budget for medical guarding by $150,000 90 percent of most of these costs are likely eligible annually per year (increasing to $1.5 million for federal Medi-cal reimbursement for the vast annually upon full implementation). majority of inmates . This is because inpatient services commonly last beyond 24 hours and Background nearly all inmates are eligible for Medi-Cal . If CDCR CDCR operates 42 medical imaging clinics took greater advantage of federal reimbursements throughout its 35 prisons, each with several major through Medi-Cal, we estimate that it could “free pieces of equipment (such as x-ray machines) that up” General Fund resources—potentially exceeding are used to provide medical services to inmates . tens of millions of dollars annually—for other state According to the department, it has been able priorities without impacting the medical services to occasionally purchase some equipment using provided to inmates . At the time of this analysis, the limited-term funding received through the approval department has not clearly identified any barriers of projects to renovate health care facilities at that prevent the state from receiving additional various prisons . However, CDCR reports that it federal reimbursements for contract medical does not have funding in its existing base budget services . As such, it is unclear whether the level of to routinely replace equipment as needed . The General Fund resources proposed in the Governor’s department states that, as a result, its medical budget for these services is necessary . imaging equipment—which has an expected Recommendation service life of seven to ten years—is over nine years old on average . This has led to the equipment Withhold Action Pending Plan to breaking down more frequently . Maximize Federal Funds. Given the apparent When medical imaging equipment breaks, clinics discrepancy between the level of federal Medi-cal may have to stop providing services until the reimbursements currently received and the level of equipment can be repaired or replaced . This can total expenditures of contract medical services that result in inmates having to go to an offsite clinic are potentially eligible for federal reimbursement, for services, as well as the need for correctional we recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to officers to transport these inmates and provide report at budget committee hearings this spring on security while inmates are at the clinic . While CDCR specific steps it will take to increase the amount does not consistently track data on medical escorts of federal reimbursement the state receives and resulting from equipment failure, the department the amount of additional reimbursements such estimates that it spent a total of about $340,000 on actions would create . This higher level of federal medical escorts as a result of broken medical reimbursement should be incorporated into the imaging equipment at four institutions in 2018 . formula that CDCR plans to propose in the spring . Until the department presents a plan to maximize federal funds, we recommend the Legislature www.lao.ca.gov 35 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Governor’s Proposal not account for savings in medical guarding costs . This is because CDCR reports that having newer The Governor’s budget proposes $1 .5 million equipment will result in less equipment breakage from the General Fund in 2020-21, increasing and therefore reduce medical guarding costs . to $2 .3 million annually by 2024-25 to replace Based on limited data provided by the department, equipment in four clinics annually—reaching all we estimate that these avoided medical guarding clinics after ten years—and fund a maintenance costs could grow to roughly $1 .5 million annually and warranty contract for the equipment . According statewide . However, the department proposes no to the department, having newer equipment that is adjustment to account for these potential savings . less prone to breakage would reduce interruptions in medical imaging services and, in turn, the need Recommendation for correctional officers to transport inmates to an In view of the above, we recommend that the offsite clinic for services . Legislature approve the Governor’s proposal but Proposal Does Not Account for also reduce CDCR’s base budget for medical Savings in Medical Guarding guarding by $150,000 per year, increasing annually to $1 .5 million once all medical imaging equipment While the Governor’s proposal would allow the has been replaced statewide to account for an department to replace medical imaging equipment anticipated reduction in medical escorts . on a regular basis, we find that the proposal does DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY RESTORATION OVERVIEW Stockton and one in Ventura) and one camp (Pine Grove) . As part of the 2019-20 Budget Act, the Operational Spending Proposed for 2020-21. Legislature approved a proposal to remove DJJ The Governor’s budget includes $290 million from CDCR and make it a separate department ($284 million General Fund) for DYCR operations under the Health and Human Services Agency in 2020-21—an increase of about $45 million, or beginning July 1, 2020 . The new department will 19 percent, from the revised 2019-20 spending be called the Department of Youth and Community level for the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) . This Restoration (DYCR) . (For more information on this increase reflects additional funding to support reorganization, please see our April 2019 report the reorganization and establishment of the new The 2019-20 Budget: Reorganization of the Division department, train additional cadets, and create of Juvenile Justice .) a mentorship program for new staff members . DYCR will take on the responsibility of The increase also reflects the administration’s supervising youth within the state’s juvenile projections that the number of youth housed in facilities . Specifically, DYCR will house youth who state juvenile facilities will increase to an average were found to have committed certain significant daily population of about 860 during 2020-21 . crimes listed in statute (such as murder, robbery, This increase is largely related to recent policy and certain sex offenses) before the age of 18 changes . Such changes include (1) a pilot program as well as certain youth under the age of 25 who approved in 2018-19 to shift up to 76 young have been convicted of crimes by an adult court . adults from prison to juvenile facilities and (2) the As of January 2020, a total of about 770 youth implementation of Proposition 57 (2016) which are housed in three state juvenile facilities (two in 36 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET placed restrictions on the circumstances in which a proposes a total of $19 .8 million General Fund and youth could be tried as an adult . 112 new positions in 2020-21 . Specifically, the budget proposes: RESOURCES AND AUGMENTATION • $12 .2 million (increasing to $13 .9 million AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH DYCR annually beginning in 2021-22) and 112 new positions for various administrative functions We recommend that the Legislature approve that were previously provided by CDCR, such the proposed resources to support the as legal services and human resources . reorganization of DJJ and the establishment • $4 .6 million ongoing for information of DYCR. However, we recommend that the technology (IT) such as software, hardware, Legislature reject the proposed provisional and network and telecommunications language authorizing the Department of equipment . According to the administration, Finance (DOF) to augment DYCR’s budget by the proposed resources are an estimate up to an additional $10 million to support the based on the IT budgets of other state reorganization as the administration has not departments and will be reassessed as part of provided sufficient justification for why the the Governor’s May Revision . language is necessary. • $2 .1 million in one-time moving costs to Background relocate the current DJJ headquarters to a larger building to accommodate the increase Some Resources for Reorganization Provided in staff . in 2019-20. To support the reorganization of • $900,000 ongoing to lease the expanded DJJ into DYCR, the 2019-20 budget included office space . $1 .2 million General Fund and 8 .8 positions in 2019-20 (increasing to $1 .8 million and Provisional Language to Allow Further 12 positions annually beginning in 2020-21) . These Augmentation. The Governor’s proposed budget resources were provided to (1) create senior level also includes provisional language authorizing positions that would assist with the transition DOF to augment DYCR’s budget in 2020-21 by up and establishment of DYCR and (2) create a new to $10 million General Fund for temporary help, preservice training institute and other training overtime, or procurement of new office space to or educational opportunities for staff and other support the reorganization . The proposed language individuals (such as volunteers) who would have requries DOF to notify the Joint Legislative Budget contact with the youth under the department’s Committee at least 30 days prior to authorizing any supervision . augmentation . Governor’s Proposal Proposed Provisional Language Shift of Resources From CDCR. To support Not Justified the establishment of DYCR, the Governor While the 112 new positions and the proposes shifting $8 .1 million General Fund and $19 .8 million General Fund augmentation requested 53 positions on an ongoing basis from CDCR to for 2020-21 to support the establishment of DYCR . The administration indicates that, while DYCR appear justified, the administration has these 53 positions reported to other divisions within not provided a rationale for why the proposed CDCR (such as legal affairs, fiscal services, and provisional budget language authorizing DOF to facility planning and construction management), provide up to an additional $10 million is needed they primarily focused on providing support to DJJ and why the $19 .8 million increase included in the and will therefore be needed to support DYCR . Governor’s budget is not sufficient to support the Additional Resources to Establish DYCR. reorganization . To further support the reorganization and establishment of DYCR, the Governor’s budget www.lao.ca.gov 37 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Recommendations planning . Youth Correctional Officers (YCO) are also sworn officers but are primarily focused on Approve Proposed Resources to Support the security, custody, and supervision of youth . Reorganization and Establishment of DYCR. Because of the critical nature of the YCC and YCO We recommend that the Legislature approve the positions, the department attempts to keep these Governor’s proposal to (1) shift $8 .1 million and positions filled . When a position becomes vacant 53 positions from CDCR to DYCR and (2) provide at any time, the department will generally use the DYCR with $19 .8 million General Fund and funding associated with the position to backfill it 112 new positions . We find that these resources with overtime until a new YCC or YCO is hired . are necessary to support the reorganization and Current Training Academies. Before new YCCs establish the new department . and YCOs can be hired, they must first be trained Reject Proposed Provisional Language. We as cadets in preservice training academies . Each recommend that the Legislature reject the proposed academy lasts 13 weeks and generally provides provisional language authorizing DOF to augment training to up to 40 cadets . The department funding for DYCR by up to $10 million to support the operates academies when it is determined that reorganization . The administration has not provided there is sufficient need for new YCCs or YCOs as a justification for why the language is necessary . a result of attrition or the creation of new positions due to increases in the number of youth needing TRAINING FOR YOUTH supervision . For example, the department plans CORRECTIONAL COUNSELORS to train 80 cadets this spring . The administration AND OFFICERS estimates that the current cost of operating these academies is about $18,000 per cadet, The Governor proposes $5.6 million General with training 80 cadets costing a total of about Fund annually to provide additional training $1 .4 million . Since 2018-19, the department resources for new cadets to become youth has paid for this training using a combination of correctional officers and counselors. This vacancy savings and $721,000 in limited-term includes $2.2 million to train up to 120 cadets General Fund support that is set to expire at the and $3.4 million to establish a ten-week job end of 2019-20 . shadowing program. We recommend that Between 2011 and 2014, staff overages due the Legislature only approve training for to a decline in the number of youth under state 80 cadets ($1.4 million), which would allow custody had reduced the need to train new cadets . DYCR to address its typical attrition rate and As a result, no academies were operated during fill newly created positions. In addition, we that time . In 2015, the department identified a recommend approving only $1.8 million for need for new YCCs and YCOs and resumed the the job shadowing program to correct for over academies . Since 2015, the department has offered budgeting in the administration’s proposal. We an average of 68 training slots per year through its also recommend that the funding for training academies—slightly higher than the average annual cadets and job shadowing be provided on a attrition rate of 66 positions . two-year, limited-term basis to allow DYCR time Academies to Be Replaced With Preservice to estimate its ongoing training needs. Training Institutes. As part of the 2019-20 Budget Act, the Legislature approved a proposal that Background included five positions and about $500,000 ongoing Youth Correctional Counselors and Officers. General Fund to establish new preservice training Youth Correctional Counselors (YCC) are sworn institutes that would replace the existing academies officers responsible for the counseling, supervision, beginning in 2020-21 . The preservice training and custody of an assigned group of youth . They institutes would utilize a new curriculum that would also analyze, organize, and record casework be updated based on current best practices in information necessary for treatment and parole juvenile justice . However, the training institutes 38 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET would continue to be 13 weeks and have the same forward and specific estimates of expected attrition operating costs as the academies, according to the rates in the future . The only rationale provided administration . by the department for the proposed increase in training capacity is that it expects there to be an Governor’s Proposals unknown increase in separations as a result of the The Governor’s budget for 2020-21 proposes reorganization from DJJ to the new DYCR . This is $5 .6 million General Fund to provide additional based on the department’s assumption that the training resources for new cadets . Specifically, the attrition rate has increased since the reorganization Governor proposes to: was proposed as part of the Governor’s January budget proposal for 2019-20 and eventually • Expand Number of Cadets Trained. The adopted by the Legislature . However, data Governor’s budget includes adjustments provided by the department does not validate to funding for training cadets to become this assumption . As shown in Figure 7, between YCCs and YCOs . First, the budget makes January 2019 (when the reorganization was first ongoing the $721,000 provided for training proposed) and November 2019 (the most recent on a limited-term basis that is set to expire data provided), the number of separations was at the end of the current year . These funds similar to the number that occurred in prior years would be sufficient to train up to 40 cadets over those same months . per year . Second, the budget proposes Accordingly, the administration has not provided about $1 .5 million to train up to an additional sufficient justification for why it would have a need 80 cadets annually, for a total of 120 cadets . for resources to train up to 120 cadets per year on • Create Job Shadowing Program. The an ongoing basis—nearly double the typical number Governor also proposes $3 .4 million annually of separations for the YCC and YCO positions for to establish a job shadowing program for which the cadets would be training . However, we newly hired YCCs and YCOs coming out of do find that the attrition rate data provided by the the preservice training institutes . During the administration and projections for the population of job shadowing program, the new hires would youth in state custody suggest that the department shadow more experienced staff on a full-time basis for Figure 7 ten weeks before beginning Current YCC and YCO Attrition Similar to Prior Years their normal duties within the Number of Separations Between January to November Each Yeara department . 70 Assessment 60 No Clear Need for Expanded 50 Training Resources. As noted earlier, the department typically 40 adjusts the number of new employees it trains based on 30 (1) the need to hire additional 20 employees to fill newly created positions and (2) the expected 10 attrition rate, so that existing positions that become vacant 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 can be filled . However, the a Due to data availability for 2019 and to ensure an accurate comparison, data for all years have been truncated department is unable to provide to only include January through November . specific estimates for what its YCC = Youth Correctional Counselor; and YCO = Youth Correctional Officer . hiring needs would be going www.lao.ca.gov 39 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET would likely need to maintain its existing training We recommend that the Legislature modify the capacity of about 80 cadets per year . This would preservice training institute proposal to only provide allow the department to address its typical attrition $1 .4 million General Fund in 2020-21 and 2021-22 rate of about 66 separations per year and train (rather than the $2 .2 million in ongoing funding additional YCCs and YCOs to fill new positions proposed by the Governor) . This would provide the that are likely to be necessary given the projected department with resources to train up to 80 cadets increase in DYCR population . per year for two years, which would be sufficient Budgeting Approach for Job Shadowing for the department to address its typical attrition Proposal Overstates Costs. Establishing the rate and fill newly created positions resulting from job shadowing program would create a ten-week the projected increase in the number youth needing period between when the new YCCs and YCOs are supervision . It would also provide the department hired and when they would fill the vacant positions time to (1) identify the impact of the reorganization and begin their normal duties . The only new costs on retention and (2) provide the Legislature with the department would experience during this time more specific estimates of its ongoing hiring needs would be the additional costs for the salaries for YCCs and YCOs . and benefits of the newly hired YCCs and YCOs Modify Job Shadowing Proposal to Correct during the ten-week period of the job shadowing for Over Budgeting. We recommend that the program . We estimate that the additional costs Legislature modify the proposal for the job for each new hire going through the ten-week job shadowing program to only provide the level of shadowing program would be about $22,200 . For General Fund support necessary to implement the 120 new hires (as assumed in the proposal), this job shadowing program . Specifically, we recommend would cost about $2 .7 million—$700,000 less providing General Fund to cover the costs of the than the $3 .4 million proposed by the Governor . salaries and benefits of the newly hired YCCs and This appears to be a technical error in which the YCOs during the ten-week job shadowing program department based its funding request on the cost that they would need to complete before filling of continuing to backfill vacancies with overtime vacancies at DYCR . After adjusting for the smaller rather than the cost of the new hires . We note that number of cadets being trained as a result of our CDCR is also proposing a similar job shadowing recommendation above, we recommend providing program and is only requesting funding for the cost limited-term funding of $1 .8 million General Fund in of the new hires during their job shadowing period . 2020-21 and 2021-22 . After the two-year period, the Legislature would be able to determine the ongoing Recommendations funding needs for the job shadowing program in Modify Training Proposal to Provide conjunction with the department’s ongoing hiring Limited-Term Funding to Train 80 Cadets. needs for YCCs and YCOs . JUDICIAL BRANCH OVERVIEW and statewide entities of the branch (the Judicial Council, the Judicial Council Facility Program, The judicial branch is responsible for the and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center) . The interpretation of law, the protection of individuals’ branch receives support from several funding rights, the orderly settlement of all legal disputes, sources including the state General Fund, civil and the adjudication of accusations of legal filing fees, criminal penalties and fines, county violations . The branch consists of statewide maintenance-of-effort payments, and federal courts (the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal), grants . trial courts in each of the state’s 58 counties, 40 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Figure 8 shows total Figure 8 operational funding for the judicial Judicial Branch Funding branch from 2016-17 through (In Billions) 2020-21 . Total funding for the judicial branch has steadily Local Revenues $5 increased and the Governor Special Funds proposes about $4 .6 billion in General Fund support in 2020-21 . 4 As shown in Figure 9, the Governor’s budget proposes 3 about $4 .4 billion from all state funds (General Fund and 2 special funds) to support the operations of the judicial branch 1 in 2020-21, an increase of $37 million (1 percent) above the revised amount for 2019-20 . 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 (These totals do not include (Estimated) (Projected) expenditures from local revenues or trial court reserves .) Of this amount, $2 .2 billion is from the General Fund—nearly half of the to $56 million annually beginning in total judicial branch budget . This is a net decrease 2023-24) to expand statewide the use of an of $48 million, or 2 percent, from the 2019-20 online adjudication tool and backfill resulting amount . This reduction is largely due to the reductions in criminal fine and fee revenue for expiration of limited-term funding provided in prior the judicial branch. The impacts of the online years . adjudication tool are still uncertain and could require more funding than currently proposed. It ONLINE ADJUDICATION OF is also premature to expand the tool statewide INFRACTIONS prior to the completion of the statutorily required evaluation of the program. We recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s proposal to provide $11.5 million General Fund in 2020-21 (increasing Figure 9 Judicial Branch Budget Summary—All State Funds (Dollars in Millions) Change From 2019-20 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Actual Estimated Proposed Amount Percent State Trial Courts $2,922 $3,267 $3,362 $95 2.9% Supreme Court 49 53 54 1 1.3 Courts of Appeal 228 259 260 1 0.4 Judicial Council 141 186 184 -2 -1.0 Judicial Branch Facility Program 445 548 490 -58 -10.6 Habeas Corpus Resource Center 16 17 18 — 2.5 Totals $3,801 $4,330 $4,367 $37 0.9% www.lao.ca.gov 41 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Background Pilot Program Established in 2018-19 Budget. The 2018-19 budget package authorized a pilot Resolution of Traffic Cases. Individuals charged program through January 1, 2023 to facilitate with traffic infractions or misdemeanors can online adjudication of certain traffic infractions at resolve their case in various ways . For example, a minimum of eight courts and allow individuals an individual can choose not to contest a violation to request ability-to-pay determinations . Under and submit payment to acknowledge conviction the requirements of the pilot program, an online of the alleged offense, such as by paying a traffic adjudication tool was required to be developed ticket . Alternatively, the individual can choose to that would (1) recommend a reduction of at least contest the violation before the court, such as 50 percent of the total amount of criminal fines and through a trial . Additionally, an individual charged fees due for low-income individuals and (2) offer at with a traffic infraction can choose to contest the least three of five additional functionalities—such as charges in writing (referred to as a “trial by written allowing individuals to request an online trial, a date declaration”) . If the individual is dissatisfied with the to appear in court, or a continuance . Individuals’ decision rendered by the court under this process, low-income status is verified in various ways, he or she can contest the charges in court, with including based on information they enter into the the court deciding the case as if the trial by written tool . The legislation requires the judicial branch to declaration never took place . provide an evaluation of the pilot program no later Criminal Fines and Fees. Upon conviction of a than June 30, 2022 . The 2018-19 budget provided criminal offense (including traffic cases), trial courts the judicial branch with $3 .4 million General Fund typically levy fines and fees upon the convicted (declining to $1 .4 million annually beginning in individual . As part of the determination of the total 2019-20) to implement and operate the pilot amount owed, individuals may request the court program . consider their ability to pay . Judges can reduce or waive certain fines and fees or provide an Governor’s Proposal alternative sentence (such as community service) . The Governor’s budget proposes a total of Individuals who plead guilty or are convicted and seven positions and $11 .5 million General Fund required to pay fines and fees must either provide in 2020-21 (increasing to $56 million annually full payment immediately or set up installment beginning in 2023-24) to: payment plans with the court or county collection program . If the individual does not pay on time, the • Expand Online Adjudication Tool Statewide. amount owed becomes delinquent . State law then The Governor’s budget requires the Judicial authorizes collection programs to use a variety of Council to (1) develop an online adjudication tools or sanctions (such as wage garnishments) to tool for all infraction violations (not just motivate individuals to pay their debt . In order for traffic infractions) that would include an a collection program to halt collection sanctions ability-to-pay component and (2) make the placed on a particular individual, the individual must tool available statewide by June 30, 2023 . pay the total amount owed, reestablish installment While trial courts could choose whether to payments, or have the court adjust the total amount make use of the full online tool, all courts owed based on his or her ability to pay . Collected would be required to offer the ability-to-pay revenues are distributed to state and local funds component of the tool by June 30, 2023 . The that support various programs, including five Governor’s budget proposes $3 .9 million, special funds that support the judicial branch—the declining to $1 .8 million annually beginning in Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF), the State Trial Court 2023-24, to support this expansion . Improvement and Modernization Fund (IMF), the • Backfill Expected Reduction in Fine State Court Facilities Construction Fund (SCFCF), and Fee Revenue. Given that the online the Immediate and Critical Needs Account (ICNA), adjudication tool allows individuals to more and the Court Facilities Trust Fund (CFTF) . easily seek reductions in the total amount of 42 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET criminal fines and fees that they are assessed, costs and benefits of such choices . As such, it is the amount of criminal fine and fee revenue premature to cancel the pilot and expand the online collected is expected to decline on an ongoing adjudication tool statewide . basis . To address this decline, the Governor’s Impacts of Online Adjudication Tool Still budget proposes an ongoing backfill for Uncertain… While there is a limited amount of reductions in revenues deposited into the preliminary data from the pilot—which Judicial TCTF, IMF, SCFCF, ICNA, and CFTF . The Council used to develop this proposal—it is Governor’s budget estimates that this backfill insufficient to determine whether to expand the will be $7 .6 million in 2020-21 and will reach tool statewide . This is because the data is both $54 .2 million in 2023-24 . Under the proposal, incomplete and potentially not representative . the exact of amount of this backfill would be According to Judicial Council, only four of adjusted annually to address whatever the eight courts participating in the pilot program actual loss in revenue is determined to be . (Shasta, Tulare, Ventura, and San Francisco) have implemented the online tool with the ability-to-pay Figure 10 summarizes the multiyear fiscal impact component . The remaining four courts are not of the Governor’s proposal . expected to implement the online tool with the The Governor’s proposal also includes trailer bill ability-to-pay component until the end of 2019-20 . language eliminating the pilot program established In addition, the online tool was launched at the first in the 2018-19 budget and making certain pilot court in April 2019 and at the fourth pilot court components of the pilot program permanent, in December 2019 . This means that none of the such as requirements related to the ability to pay courts have data available that span at least one determinations and to online trials for those trial year . Moreover, the other required components of courts that choose to offer them . We also note the tool—such as allowing individuals to request that, under the language, an evaluation of the pilot an online trial or a date to appear in court—will not program activities would no longer be required . be developed and implemented at the pilot courts until the end of 2020 . As a result, the impact of Assessment these components is unknown—and could remain Premature to Cancel Pilot and Expand unknown—given that the pilot program and the Statewide. As indicated above, existing state required evaluation would be eliminated under the law requires the judicial branch to complete Governor’s proposal . Finally, the 2018-19 budget an evaluation of the pilot program by June 30, directed the judicial branch to select at least eight 2022 . The purpose of the pilot was to determine courts to participate in the pilot and provided the overall costs, effectiveness, and impacts of guidelines for the selection of the courts in order the specified pilot activities . Such information to ensure a diverse sample . However, given that is intended to inform future policy and funding only four courts have implemented the pilot, it is decisions by the Legislature regarding online possible that the pilot may not be representative of adjudication and ability-to-pay determinations, including the trade-offs of certain choices . For example, the Figure 10 Legislature may want to consider Governor’s Online Adjudication Proposal whether a higher criminal fine (In Millions) and fee reduction for low-income 2023‑24 and individuals (as compared to the 2020‑21 2021‑22 2022‑23 ongoing 50 percent minimum under the pilot program) would be more Expanding pilot program statewide $3.9 $5.4 $5.5 $1.8 Backfill of reductions in criminal fine 7.6 18.5 39.5 54.2 appropriate . Without the results and fee revenue of the pilot, the Legislature would Totals $11.5 $23.9 $45.0 $56.0 be unable to fully understand the www.lao.ca.gov 43 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET the state . For example, it is unclear whether other Legislature to assess the effectiveness and impacts counties have similar proportions of low-income of specific pilot activities, which will better inform individuals or other court users who would actively future legislative policy and funding decisions . seek to use the tool . …Meaning Potential General Fund Backfill COURT NAVIGATOR PROGRAM Could Be Higher. The limited availability of data We recommend the Legislature reject the from the four courts that have implemented the Governor’s proposal to provide $8.1 million pilot is particularly problematic as the level of from the General Fund in 2020-21 (increasing General Fund backfill the administration estimates to $15.5 million annually in 2021-22) to would be necessary is based on the small amount establish a Court Navigator Program in trial of data available from the pilot . To the extent that courts, because it is premature to consider the more individuals than projected make use of the proposal for a variety of reasons. For example, tool or if trial courts choose to grant reductions the proposed program would provide some much greater than the minimum 50 percent services already offered by trial courts and it required in the pilot program, the size of the backfill is unclear whether the proposed services are could be much higher than is assumed under the priorities for court users. Governor’s proposal . We also note that this uncertainty means there is Background a lack of information on the impact the expansion of the tool statewide will have upon other state Services for Self-Represented Litigants. and local funds that receive criminal fine and fee Self-represented individuals refers to those who revenue . It is reasonable to assume that these choose to access certain court services without the funds will similarly experience a reduction in such assistance of legal counsel—typically related to civil revenue given the expected impact on the judicial matters . This is generally because the individuals branch funds . However, the specific impact on cannot afford to hire legal representation . Given individual funds and the programs they support— their lack of familiarity with statutory requirements such as the Restitution Fund or the Commission and court procedures (such as what forms must be on Peace Officers Standards and Training—is filled out or their legal obligations in the potential unknown . Additionally, it is unknown how such case), self-represented individuals can be at a reductions would be addressed—such as through legal disadvantage . In addition, trial court staff a General Fund backfill similar to the judicial branch tends to spend significantly more time processing funds, reductions in service, or through other a self-represented filing than one with legal means . representation . For example, a self-represented litigant who files incomplete or inaccurate Recommendations paperwork can lead to the litigant having to file paperwork repeatedly, the court to continue or Reject Proposal. In view of the above delay cases, or the court needing to schedule concerns, we recommend the Legislature reject additional hearings . To help self-represented the Governor’s proposal to cancel the pilot, expand individuals access the court system, the judicial the existing online adjudication tool statewide, and branch offers or partners with other legal provide a General Fund backfill . More complete and stakeholders (such as county law libraries or accurate data is necessary to accurately determine the State Bar) to provide various services and the impact of the various activities being tested in programs—such as legal aid and in-person the pilot program that is currently in progress . This self-help centers . includes the associated reduction in the amount Increased Funding Provided for Various of criminal fine and fee revenue distributed to Services in Recent Years. Increased funding has various state and local funds (including judicial been provided in recent years to programs intended branch funds) that will need to be addressed . The forthcoming evaluation of the pilot would allow the 44 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET to assist self-represented litigants . The most to the administration and the judicial branch, the significant funding increases include: court navigators are intended to fill gaps they believe currently exist in the provision of services • Legal Aid. The 2017-18 budget included for self-represented litigants . The court navigators an ongoing $10 million augmentation to the would (1) provide nonlegal assistance in self-help Equal Access Fund Program for the provision centers to allow self-help attorneys to focus on of legal services and assistance to indigent legal assistance; (2) provide directions and referrals individuals in civil case types . to court services; (3) help court users employ • Self-Help Centers. The 2018-19 budget court technology, such as for form completion; provided an additional $19 .1 million General (4) support litigants, such as by accompanying Fund annually through 2020-21 to support them in courtrooms or taking notes in mediation self-help centers at each trial court and processes; and (5) walking litigants through the required the judicial branch to conduct a next steps needed to complete their case . The cost-benefit analysis of self-help services by Judicial Council would allocate funds for court November 2020 . Self-help centers serve as a navigators to the trial courts . central location for self-represented individuals to educate themselves and seek assistance Premature to Consider Proposal with navigating court procedures . Attorneys Some of the Proposed Services Already and other trained personnel who staff the Offered. Some of the services that would be centers provide services in a variety of ways provided by the proposed court navigators are (such as one-on-one assistance in completing already provided by some self-help centers . For forms, courtroom assistance, and workshops) example, nearly all self-help centers provide in various case types . assistance with form completion in some manner . • Self-Represented Litigants E-Services Web Moreover, some self-help centers also provide Portal. The 2018-19 budget also included various types of nonlegal assistance, such as $3 .2 million General Fund in 2018-19, offering certain workshops, ensuring litigants declining to $709,000 annually beginning in know where to go after leaving the center, and 2020-21, for the judicial branch to design, accompanying litigants to courtrooms . build, and maintain a self-represented litigants Self-help centers generally have flexibility in the e-services web portal . This web portal will services they provide, the type and number of staff allow self-represented litigants to research, they hire, and the manner in which they provide complete and file forms electronically, and services . As such, to the extent (1) these services track their cases online through a user are a high priority for a particular trial court and account . Interactive instructional tools and (2) court navigators were believed to be the best chat functions built into the system would way to provide them, a trial court could support provide litigants with assistance in completing such services within existing resources . We note forms, addressing questions, or prompting that the increased funding provided to self-help next steps . centers in 2018-19 could be used to implement or expand such services in the near term . To Governor’s Proposal the extent these services are not already being The Governor’s budget proposes $8 .1 million provided, it is likely because they are not high (General Fund) in 2020-21 and $15 .5 million priorities for individual trial courts . annually beginning in 2021-22 to establish a Court Unclear Whether Proposed Activities Are Navigator Program in trial courts . This funding Priority for Court Users. While court navigator would support 2 .5 administrative positions at services could provide some benefit to court users, Judicial Council, as well as 50 court navigator it is unclear whether the specific activities proposed positions in the trial courts in 2020-21 (increasing are priorities for court users . For example, to the to 100 court navigators in 2021-22) . According extent more resources were available for self-help www.lao.ca.gov 45 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET services, court users could prefer legal assistance Governor’s proposal to provide $8 .1 million with completing certain forms—which cannot (General Fund) in 2020-21 to establish a Court be offered by a court navigator—over receiving Navigator Program in trial courts . directions or courtroom accompaniment . Evaluation of Existing Funding for COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION Self-Help Centers Currently in Progress. The OFFSET OF TRIAL COURT GENERAL 2018-19 budget package required the judicial FUND SUPPORT branch to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of self-help center services by November 2020 . We recommend the Legislature adjust the This analysis will determine which methods of trial court offset in 2020-21 upward to account delivering services (such as one-on-one services for property tax growth in 2019-20. Our or workshops) are most cost-effective and in what preliminary estimates indicate that the upward case types . This analysis is particularly important adjustment is $23.8 million, but updated data as some services proposed to be offered by court will be available in the spring to further refine navigators are already offered in some self-help this estimate. This would provide the Legislature centers and should already be part of this analysis . with additional General Fund resources above The cost-benefit analysis will help the Legislature the level assumed in the Governor’s budget. determine what level of funding is merited and where funding should be targeted to maximize Background state benefit . In particular, the analysis could County Offices of Education (COEs). Each of identify where gaps in services exist and whether California’s 58 counties has a COE . COEs oversee court navigators would be the most effective way the budgets and academic plans of school districts to address those gaps . Until the above evaluation within their jurisdictions, operate certain alternative is completed, it is premature to provide additional schools, and provide various optional services to funding for self-help services . school districts . A primary source of funding for Impact of Other Self-Help Related Services COEs is the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) . Remains Unclear. As discussed above, increased Each COE’s annual LCFF allotment is determined funding has been provided to other self-help related by formula . services that could reduce the overall unmet need Some COEs Collect “Excess Property Tax” for self-help services, including those that would Revenue. A COE’s annual LCFF allotment is be provided by court navigators . However, these supported first with local property tax revenue, services may not be captured in the pending with the remainder covered by state Proposition 98 cost-benefit analysis of services provided by General Fund . Some COEs do not receive state self-help centers . For example, the new self-help support because they collect enough property web portal could enable litigants to successfully tax revenue in a given year to cover the entire complete simpler or more common forms outside LCFF allotment . In virtually all of these cases, the of the courthouse—reducing the need for self-help COEs collect more in property tax revenue than assistance in this area . Such a reduction raises their LCFF allotment . The amount collected above questions about the potential need for court the LCFF allotment is known as excess property navigators as this type of activity is one of the tax . Because the amount of property tax revenue responsibilities that court navigators would be collected can change from year to year, the amount responsible for . However, at this time, the impact of of excess property tax also can change from year these recently funded services on self-help services to year . need is unknown . Offset of General Fund Support for Trial Recommendations Courts. State law requires that any excess property tax revenues collected by COEs beyond their LCFF Reject Proposal. In light of above concerns, allotments be used to offset state General Fund we recommend that the Legislature reject the 46 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET support of trial courts . The transfer occurs at the budget . Specifically, we estimate that $114 million direction of DOF and the State Controller’s Office in excess property tax revenues will be available in the year after the taxes are collected . For example, 11 counties in 2019-20 . This is $23 .8 million over excess property taxes collected in 2018-19 offset the Governor’s estimate . We estimate the annual the state’s General Fund support of trial courts in excess tax revenue will continue to increase and 2019-20 . will exceed $200 million in 2023-24 . Governor’s Proposal Recommendation The Governor’s budget estimates that the Adjust Offset to Free Up Additional General amount of excess property tax revenue available in Fund Resources. We recommend the Legislature 2020-21 will not increase over the 2019-20 level of adjust the trial court offset in 2020-21 upward $90 .1 million . to account for property tax growth in 2019-20 . This would provide the Legislature with additional Assessment General Fund resources above the level assumed in the Governor’s budget . Our preliminary estimates Underestimate of Revenue Available for Offset. Our preliminary analysis of property tax indicate that the offset should be adjusted upward growth projects higher levels of excess property tax by $23 .8 million, but note that updated data will be revenues available to offset General Fund support available in the spring to further refine this estimate . of trial courts than assumed in the Governor’s We will provide updated numbers at that time . DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERVIEW About half of the proposed spending supports the department’s Division of Legal Services, Under the direction of the Attorney General, DOJ while the remainder supports the Division of provides legal services to state and local entities, Law Enforcement and the California Justice brings lawsuits to enforce public rights, and carries Information Services Division . Of the total amount out various law enforcement activities . DOJ also proposed for DOJ operations in 2020-21, nearly provides various services to local law enforcement one-third—$370 million—is from the General Fund . agencies, including providing forensic services This is an increase of $10 million, or 2 .8 percent, to local law enforcement agencies in jurisdictions from the estimated 2019-20 General Fund amount . without their own crime laboratory . In addition, the department also Figure 11 manages the statewide criminal history database and conducts Total Expenditures for the Department of Justice background checks required (Dollars in Millions) for firearm purchase and other Change From 2019‑20 2018‑19 2019‑20 2020‑21 purposes . Actual Estimated Proposed Amount Percent As shown in Figure 11, the Legal Services $465 $547 $554 $7 1.3% Governor’s budget proposes Law Enforcement 230 300 309 9 3.1 $1 .1 billion to support DOJ California Justice 206 239 244 5 2.1 operations in 2020-21, an increase Information Services of $22 million, or 2 percent, over Totals $902 $1,086 $1,107 $22 2.0% the revised amount for 2019-20 . www.lao.ca.gov 47 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES 2013-14 . For example, the amount of revenue deposited in 2020-21 is projected to be about SUPPORT 38 percent (or about $26 million) lower than the We recommend the Legislature approve the 2013-14 level . To help address this steady decline Governor’s proposals to provide (1) $32 million in DNA Identification Fund revenue and to maintain one-time General Fund to backfill declines in BFS service levels, the state has provided steadily criminal fine and fee revenue deposited into increasing amounts of support from the General the DNA Identification Fund to support the Fund . Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) and (2) a Governor’s Proposal $17.7 million General Fund augmentation for site acquisition and the planning phase for a The Governor’s 2020-21 budget proposes new consolidated forensic science laboratory $101 million in total operational support for BFS campus, equipment replacement and facility with nearly 50 percent coming from the General maintenance, and workload related to the Fund, 37 percent from the DNA Identification Fund, implementation of recent legislation . We also and the remainder from various other sources . recommend requiring local agencies to partially General Fund Backfill to Support Existing support BFS beginning in 2021-22 and directing Service Levels. The Governor’s budget includes DOJ to develop a plan to implement of these $32 million in one-time General Fund support to changes. backfill a projected decline in criminal fine and fee revenue in the DNA Identification Fund in order to Background maintain existing levels of service . Of this amount, Overview of BFS. The BFS provides criminal $10 million would be redirected from the California laboratory services—such as DNA testing, alcohol Justice Information Services Division within DOJ . and controlled substances analysis, and on-site This redirection would then be backfilled by revenue crime scene investigative support—predominantly from another DOJ special fund—the Fingerprint for local law enforcement agencies that do not have Fees Account . access to such services . BFS operates ten regional Increased Funding to Support BFS. The crime laboratories that serve law enforcement Governor’s budget also proposes a $17 .7 million and prosecutorial agencies in 46 counties at no General Fund augmentation to support BFS . This charge . BFS also assists the 12 counties and amount includes: 8 cities that operate their own laboratories in cases where BFS offers services their laboratories • $7 .3 million in ongoing funding for equipment lack . (Local agencies also contract with private or replacement ($5 .8 million) and facility other governmental laboratories for services .) BFS maintenance and repairs ($1 .5 million) . offers its services free of charge . Additionally, BFS • $896,000 in ongoing funding and four operates the state’s DNA laboratory as well as the positions for increased workload from the state’s criminalistics training institute . implementation of Chapter 588 of 2019 Funding for BFS. BFS receives support from (SB 22, Leyva) . Senate Bill 22 requires— various sources, including the General Fund, the within certain time frames—law enforcement DNA Identification Fund (a state fund that receives agencies to submit sexual assault forensic criminal fine and fee revenues), and grants and evidence for testing and crime laboratories reimbursements . In 2013-14, BFS received most to either process or transmit the evidence to of its support from the DNA Identification Fund another laboratory . (84 percent), with the remainder from the General • $9 .5 million (one time) for site acquisition Fund (5 percent) and various other sources and the planning phase for a proposed (11 percent) . However, the amount of criminal consolidated forensic science laboratory fine and fee revenue deposited into the DNA campus . The campus would consolidate Identification Fund has steadily declined since the state’s DNA laboratory, the Sacramento 48 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET regional laboratory, the state’s criminalistics to prioritize what forensic evidence is collected and training institute, and BFS headquarters submitted for testing . Their submissions instead into one facility in the Sacramento region . are generally only limited by BFS’s overall capacity The estimated total cost of the project is and service levels, as determined by the amount of $444 million . funding provided to the bureau in the annual state budget . In contrast, counties and cities that use Assessment their own resources to support their labs—or those that decide they want to pay a private laboratory for Governor’s Proposals Appear Reasonable… testing—have greater incentive to carefully prioritize We find that the Governor’s proposals generally what evidence should be tested and how quickly it appear reasonable as DOJ has provided sufficient should be done . workload justification for the total level of funding proposed for BFS operations and the ongoing need Recommendations for equipment and repair funding . We also find it Approve Governor’s Proposals. We reasonable for DOJ to purchase land and begin the recommend that the Legislature approve the planning process for a new consolidated forensic Governor’s proposals to provide (1) General Fund laboratory campus . support to backfill a projected decline in criminal …But Do Not Fully Address Ongoing Decline fine and fee revenue in the DNA Identification Fund in DNA Identification Fund Revenues. The and (2) increased funding for equipment and facility Governor’s proposal does not provide a permanent maintenance and repairs, workload associated solution to the ongoing decline in criminal fine with SB 22, and site acquisition and the planning and fee revenues that are deposited in the DNA phase for a proposed consolidated forensic science Identification Fund to support BFS . As such, an laboratory campus . ongoing and sustainable funding solution for BFS Require Local Governments to Partially would still need to be identified . Support Bureau Beginning in 2021-22. Given BFS Provides Certain Local Governments the substantial benefit that local agencies receive Substantial Benefits. City and county law from BFS services, we recommend the Legislature enforcement and prosecutorial agencies are take steps to require local agencies to partially predominantly responsible for collecting and support BFS . Under our recommendation, agencies submitting forensic evidence for testing as well as that receive service from BFS would be required using the evidence to pursue criminal convictions in to pay for a portion of the services they receive . court . A large share of BFS resources are dedicated This would provide them with a greater incentive to providing support to these agencies . However, to prioritize workload that is submitted to DOJ . certain counties and cities benefit significantly Additionally, local agency contributions would more than others . Specifically, while 12 counties reduce the amount of state funding required to and 8 cities currently use their own resources to support BFS, which would provide an ongoing support local criminal laboratories, 46 counties solution to the decline of fine and fee revenue generally do not have to use any of their resources deposited into the DNA Identification Fund . for criminal laboratory services . This is because Since it will take time to calculate each agency’s BFS is effectively subsidizing the agencies in these appropriate share of support and to allow the counties with tens of millions of dollars in services agencies to adapt to the new BFS funding annually . structure, we recommend that this new structure Local Governments Lack Incentive to Use go into effect in 2021-22 . BFS Services Cost-Effectively. BFS’s current Require Development of Plan for Calculating funding structure provides the agencies it Local Government’s Share of Bureau Support. serves with little incentive to use its services in a We recommend the Legislature direct DOJ to cost-effective manner . Since BFS does not charge develop a plan to calculate each local agency’s for its services, these local agencies lack incentive share of the BFS services it uses and report www.lao.ca.gov 49 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET this plan by January 10, 2021 to enable its the expedited time frame would likely result consideration as part of the 2021-22 budget . This in higher costs than currently identified and should include staff, operating expenses (such increase the risk that this project and other as the regular replacement of equipment), and DOJ technology projects are delayed and not facility costs (such as maintenance costs) . The completed successfully. Legislature should provide guidance to DOJ on Background the development of the plan . For example, we recommend the Legislature direct DOJ to develop Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition. a plan in which at least half of BFS operating Under federal and state law, certain individuals revenues come from local agencies . This funding are not permitted to have firearms or ammunition . would replace the 50 percent of BFS’s budget These “prohibited persons” include individuals which is proposed to be supported by the General (1) convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors Fund in 2020-21 . DOJ would then be provided with (such as assault or battery), (2) found by a court to flexibility to develop the specifics of the plan after be a danger to themselves or others due to mental consulting with stakeholders . For example, DOJ illness, and (3) with a restraining order against could require local agencies to pay more or less them . To implement this restriction, state law based on various factors—such as the specific type includes various regulations—including regulations of forensic service being sought, the speed of the on firearm and ammunition sales . These regulations service, the size of the agency, or the crime rate include requirements for vendors to (1) be licensed, in a local jurisdiction . If structured appropriately, (2) conduct background checks to ensure sales are this could provide a permanent ongoing funding not made to prohibited persons, and (3) record and solution for the support of BFS . report certain pieces of information to DOJ . The Direct DOJ to Update Future Facility Request recorded information, along with other data (such if Necessary. Requiring local agencies that use as criminal history data), are stored on various the services of BFS to help support the costs of databases that DOJ uses to regulate firearms and the bureau would incentivize them to find the most ammunition sales . Fees charged to vendors and cost-effective way to obtain laboratory services . buyers are intended to offset the state’s regulatory This could result in some agencies choosing to use costs . other labs instead of BFS (such as private or other Regulation of Firearm Precursor Parts government labs) or send fewer cases to BFS . This, Authorized. Chapter 730 of 2019 (AB 879, Gipson) in turn, could result in BFS modifying the services it extends state regulation regarding prohibited provides if there is a change in demand for specific persons to firearm precursor parts . A precursor services or in particular regions . To the extent that part is defined as a component of a firearm that is this results in changes to BFS’s overall workload necessary to build or assemble a firearm, such as or organization, it could impact its need for the an unfinished handgun frame . Beginning July 2024, proposed consolidated forensic science laboratory AB 879 requires vendors of precursor parts be campus . As such, we recommend the Legislature licensed and that sales of such parts be processed direct DOJ to update its future budget request through a licensed vendor . Additionally, beginning for the next phase of the project to reflect any July 2025, the legislation requires licensed necessary changes . vendors to conduct background checks to ensure sales are not made to prohibited persons . It also FIREARM PRECURSOR PARTS requires the collection and electronic submission of certain information—such as the date of sale We recommend the Legislature reject the and the purchaser’s name, date of birth, address, Governor’s proposal to provide $5 million and telephone number—to DOJ . Finally, AB 879 (General Fund) in 2020-21 and $5 million in authorizes fees on vendors and purchasers to cover 2021-22 to expedite the implementation of new state administrative, regulatory, and enforcement firearm precursor parts regulatory requirements costs . than envisioned in existing law. We find that 50 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Governor’s Proposals Expedited Time Frame Could Increase Project Risks. Expediting the implementation of Increased Resources to Expedite Regulation AB 879 could make it more difficult to ensure that of Firearm Precursor Parts. The Governor’s DOJ successfully completes the project on time, budget for 2020-21 proposes $5 million from without error, and within budget . This is because the General Fund annually for two years to the expedited time frame means that the planning expedite implementation of AB 879—for a total and execution of the project will be much more of $10 million . Specifically, the administration compressed than originally planned and envisioned proposes to move the date by which (1) vendors by the Legislature and, thus, could impact the must be licensed, (2) sales must be processed department’s ability to ensure that the project through a licensed vendor, and (3) vendors must operates as intended . begin conducting background checks to July We also note that expediting the process to 2022 . This would move the deadline for licensure update various firearms-related databases could and processing of sales up two years and the affect various other DOJ technology projects deadline for conducting background checks up currently underway, such as a new tiered sex three years earlier than otherwise required in offender registry that is currently scheduled to statute . The administration and DOJ indicate that be completed at the end of March 2022 at an the implementation of AB 879 should be expedited estimated cost of $73 .6 million . Additionally, the because untraceable guns (commonly known as Governor’s budget proposes initial planning and “ghost guns”)—which can be built from precursor analysis to determine resource needs for the parts—are a public safety issue . The proposed modernization of nearly a dozen firearms-related resources would be used to initiate a technology systems . Working on too many projects project to update various firearms-related simultaneously means that DOJ’s capacity to databases that are needed to implement AB 879 . effectively monitor the progress of projects is The administration specifically states that this limited, which can increase the risk that projects request is an estimate and that a revised request are delayed, not completed successfully, and cost will be submitted in the spring to provide updated more than initially planned . costs as well as details on such costs . Recommendation Assessment Reject Governor’s Proposal to Expedite We find the administration’s desire to implement Implementation. In view of the above concerns, AB 879 on an expedited time frame has merit from we recommend that the Legislature reject the a public safety standpoint . However, the proposal Governor’s proposal to provide DOJ with additional raises two concerns, as we discuss below . resources to expedite the implementation of Implementation Costs Likely to Be Higher Than Assumed. We find the costs to implement Figure 12 AB 879 on an expedited time frame could likely be higher than assumed in the Governor’s budget . Legislative Committee Analysis of First, at the time the Legislature was considering AB 879a Implementation Costs AB 879, the cost to implement the legislation was (In Millions) estimated to total $12 .3 million, spread over five Fiscal Year Costs years (see Figure 12) . Second, DOJ indicates that 2021-22 $1.0 meeting the proposed expedited time frame would 2022-23 3.3 likely require greater use of outside consultants 2023-24 3.8 than initially planned . Since outside consultants 2024-25 2.9 are often more expensive than state employees, 2025-26 and ongoing 1.3 the actual cost to expedite the implementation of Total $12.3 AB 879 could be even higher than $12 .3 million . a Chapter 730 of 2019 (AB 879, Gipson). www.lao.ca.gov 51 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET AB 879 . We find that the time frame envisioned oversight over the cardroom industry and how by the Legislature when it approved AB 879 will frequently it pursues investigations of the industry . help avoid increased implementation costs and In other cases, statute gives DOJ significant reduce the risk that this project and other DOJ flexibility in how it carries out certain responsibilities technology projects are not delayed and completed by authorizing—but not requiring—the department successfully . to engage in certain activities . For example, DOJ generally sets its own priorities on how to RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT use its legal resources to pursue cases against LEGISLATION AND OTHER private businesses or other entities that engage in dishonest or anticompetitive business practices . WORKLOAD Accordingly, DOJ can determine which cases to pursue, how to pursue them, and the level of The Governor’s budget proposes a total resources dedicated to pursuing cases . of $15.3 million from various fund sources in 2020-21 (declining to $12.5 million Governor’s Proposals annually in 2022-23) for 11 different proposals—10 proposals related to recently Increased Resources Related to Recently enacted legislation and 1 proposal related Enacted Legislation and Other Workload to workload changes for the oversight of Changes. The Governor’s budget proposes a cardrooms. We find that the proposals generally total of $15 .3 million from various fund sources fall into one of three categories: (1) proposals in 2020-21 (declining to $12 .5 million annually in for anticipated workload that can be 2022-23) for 11 different proposals—10 proposals accommodated within existing resources or can related to recently enacted legislation and be addressed in alternative ways than proposed, 1 proposal related to workload changes for (2) proposals for which it is premature to the oversight of cardrooms . These resources provide some or all of the requested resources would support 73 positions . Figure 13 (see at this time, and (3) proposals which are pages 54 and 55) summarizes the Governor’s unnecessary given that there is a separate 11 proposals . proposal elsewhere in the Governor’s budget for Assessment DOJ that would address the identified workload. Accordingly, we make various recommendations In our review of the Governor’s proposals, we consistent with our findings. find that the proposals generally fall into one of three categories: (1) proposals for anticipated Background workload that is absorbable (meaning it can be DOJ Often Has Flexibility in Ensuring accommodated within existing resources) or Compliance With State Laws. Statute places could be addressed in alternative ways than being various responsibilities on DOJ to ensure proposed, (2) proposals for which it is premature to compliance with state laws . In some cases, statute provide some or all of the requested resources at specifically requires DOJ to engage in certain this time, and (3) proposals which are unnecessary activities to accomplish its responsibilities . For given that there is a separate proposal elsewhere in example, the department is required to maintain the Governor’s budget for DOJ that would address and monitor the state’s criminal justice databases the identified workload . and conduct background checks on individuals Some Requests Are Absorbable or Can Be seeking cardroom gaming licenses . We note, Addressed in Alternative Ways. In reviewing however, that the department maintains some the Governor’s proposals, we identified a few flexibility in how they carry out such required proposals that are requesting additional resources activities . For example, DOJ has some flexibility for workload that the department should be able in determining the methods it uses to conduct to accommodate within existing resources or in 52 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET alternative ways . The specific proposals are for firearms and authorizes DOJ to seize them . increased resources to implement: While DOJ previously lacked authority to seize firearms from these individuals, it was tracking • Chapter 432 of 2019 (AB 649, Garcia). these individuals . As such, the department This legislation authorizes cardrooms to seeks additional resources to seize these employ individuals between 18 to 20 years firearms and to update statewide lists of all of age in certain job classifications, if the crimes for which individuals can be arrested or local ordinance governing the cardroom is cited (also known as statewide master code amended to allow this . However, it is unclear tables) . We find that DOJ seizure workload whether any local ordinances will actually be should be absorbable given the increased changed and require DOJ review . Moreover, number of positions provided to DOJ for DOJ is already required to review changes in firearm seizures in the 2019-20 budget, which local ordinances when made for other reasons are in the process of being filled . Additionally, and the legislation only authorizes a change in we find the other workload to be similarly employee age . Accordingly, we find that DOJ absorbable . For example, the Legislature should be able to address this workload with regularly enacts legislation that requires existing resources . updates to the statewide master code tables . • Chapter 581 of 2019 (AB 1331, Bonta). However, these tables should generally only This legislation generally requires DOJ to need to be updated once a year and existing retain and provide more criminal record staff who are currently doing this workload data . DOJ seeks additional resources to should be able to do it for Chapter 726 as handle an anticipated increase in (1) requests well . for criminal record information, (2) costs • Bureau of Gambling Control (BGC) associated with retaining and providing more Cardroom Oversight Request. The data, and (3) workload related to verifying Governor’s budget provides BGC with that requestors are authorized to receive the additional resources to (1) shift to a proactive information . We find that to the extent to approach towards the regulation of the which DOJ will actually experience increased cardroom industry and (2) hire two attorneys data requests is unclear as it is unknown how and one legal secretary to carry out various many additional requests will be submitted responsibilities, including reviewing warning specifically as a result of the changes made letters and other compliance-related by Chapter 581 . Additionally, we find that correspondence prepared by BGC analysts a reasonable alternative to providing the and staff as well as attending meetings with requested resources for certain workload attorneys representing licensees . While would be for DOJ to improve its existing additional resources appear needed for BGC processes . For example, DOJ can require that to take on a more proactive approach, we find individuals requesting data provide information that the bureau can pursue other alternatives or documentation demonstrating why they are to hiring attorneys and a legal secretary . eligible to receive the information—rather than For example, BGC could provide additional having DOJ conducting in-depth research on training for existing analytical staff to ensure the requestor . Accordingly, we find that DOJ they appropriately and consistently prepare should be able to address this workload within warning letters and other compliance-related existing resources . correspondence . This would eliminate • Chapter 726 of 2019 (AB 164, Cervantes). the need for attorneys to review such This measure generally prohibits individuals correspondence . subject to temporary restraining orders, injunctions, or protective orders issued in Other Requests Are Premature. We also find other states from purchasing or possessing that it is premature to provide funding for all or parts of a few of the Governor’s proposals at this www.lao.ca.gov 53 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET time . The specific proposals are for increased well as the methods DOJ develops to provide resources to implement: the data . For example, the development of an automated script to query data from DOJ • Chapter 589 of 2019 (SB 36, Hertzberg). databases would minimize future workload This legislation requires pretrial services associated with these requests . agencies to validate their pretrial risk • Chapter 737 of 2019 (SB 61, Portantino). assessment tools by January 1, 2021 and This legislation (1) generally prohibits the sale regularly revalidate them at least once every of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to individuals three years . In the process of validating such under the age of 21 and (2) limits the number tools, pretrial agencies will need to request of such weapons that can be purchased in a certain data from DOJ . While the department 30-day period beginning July 1, 2021 . DOJ will need additional resources to address requests resources to modify the state’s this workload, the level of resources that firearms databases and to defend the law in are needed on an ongoing basis remains court when challenged . While DOJ’s request unknown as it will depend on how frequently for additional resources to modify the state’s agencies choose to validate their tools as Figure 13 Summary of 11 Governor’s Proposals Included in This Analysis Workload Proposed Resources Description Recently Enacted Legislation Chapter 432 of 2019 2 limited-term positions and Authorizes cardrooms to employ individuals between 18 to 20 years of age (AB 649, Garcia) $379,000 (Gambling Control in certain job classifications, if local ordinances are amended to allow this. Fund) in 2020-21 and $362,000 Existing law requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review amended in 2021-22 ordinances. DOJ requests resources to do so. Chapter 452 of 2019 2 positions and $377,000 (General Authorizes DOJ to investigate and enforce prohibitions on (1) telemarketers (AB 1132, Gabriel) Fund) in 2020-21 and $364,000 entering false government information into a caller identification system to annually in 2021-22 mislead call recipients and (2) callers from making calls knowing that such false information was entered. Authorizes district and city attorneys and DOJ to investigate and enforce the law. DOJ requests resources to do so. Chapter 531 of 2019 7 positions and $1.7 million Creates a presumption that an agreement that resolves or settles a patent (AB 824, Wood) (Attorney General Antitrust infringement claim related to the sale of a pharmaceutical product to be Account) in 2020-21 and anticompetitive under certain circumstances. Specifies violations are $1.6 million annually in 2021-22 punishable by a civil penalty that is recoverable only in litigation brought by DOJ. The department requests resources to pursue investigations and litigation. Chapter 581 of 2019 1 position and $161,000 (General Requires DOJ to retain and provide additional criminal record information when (AB 1331, Bonta) Fund) in 2020-21 and $152,000 requested and generally prohibits individuals from being denied criminal annually in 2021-22 record information solely on the basis of their criminal records. DOJ seeks resources to (1) address an anticipated increase in requests due to the availability of more complete data and the removal of prohibitions on who can request information, (2) meet requirements to retain and provide more data, and (3) verify the status of data requesters. Chapter 589 of 2019 2 positions and $314,000 (General Requires pretrial services agencies to validate their pretrial risk assessment (SB 36, Hertzberg) Fund ) in 20201-21 and $297,000 tools by January 2021 and regularly revalidate it at least once every three annually in 2021-22 years. DOJ requests additional resources to fulfill data requests from these agencies. (Continued) 54 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET firearms databases is justified, we find that • Chapter 789 of 2019 (AB 1747, Gonzalez). the request for additional legal resources— This measure limits the use of the state’s one attorney and one legal secretary on a telecommunications system for immigration limited-term basis—to defend the law in court enforcement purposes and requires is premature . According to DOJ, litigation is documentation of certain inquiries . Since this currently pending related to the enactment change requires DOJ to modify the existing of legislation in 2018 that generally prohibits system, the additional resources requested to the sale or transfer of firearms to individuals do this are justified . However, we find that the under the age of 21 . A legal challenge to additional legal resources—one attorney and Chapter 737 has been folded into that one legal secretary beginning 2021-22—to litigation . This should reduce the amount of defend Chapter 789 in court is premature . work needed to defend Chapter 737 as work This is because no legal challenge to the prepared for the existing litigation would legislation has been filed at this time . similarly apply to Chapter 737—particularly • Chapter 840 of 2019 (SB 172, Portantino). since both involve the prohibition of sales to This legislation authorizes—but does not individuals under the age of 21 . Accordingly, require—certain licensed community care we find that the additional legal resources facilities to centrally store the firearms and proposed are not needed at this time . ammunition belonging to their residents Workload Proposed Resources Description Chapter 726 of 2019 2 positions and $654,000 (General Generally prohibits individuals subject to certain types of temporary restraining (AB 164, Cervantes) Fund) in 2020-21 and $538,000 orders, injunctions, or protective orders issued in other states from annually in 2021-22 purchasing or possessing firearms. DOJ requests additional resources for the seizure of firearms from such individuals who were previously tracked but for whom DOJ lacked seizure authority as well as other workload . Chapter 737 of 2019 6 positions (2 permanent, 4 limited Generally prohibits the sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to individuals (SB 61, Portantino) term) and $2.4 million Dealers’ under the age of 21. Limits the number of such weapons that can be Record of Sale Special Account purchased in a 30-day period beginning July 1, 2021. DOJ requests in 2020-21, declining to $379,000 resources to modify the state’s firearms databases and to defend the law in annually in 2022-23 court. Chapter 750 of 2019 2 positions and $375,000 (General Expands the definition of personal information subject to state’s existing data (AB 1130, Levine) Fund) in 2020-21 and $362,000 breach laws to also include various data such as unique biometric data and annually in 2021-22 passport numbers. DOJ requests additional resources for enforcement of the expanded scope of the state’s data breach and security laws. Chapter 789 of 2019 16 positions and $2.8 million Limits the use of the state’s law enforcement telecommunications system (AB 1747, Gonzalez) (General Fund) in 2020-21, for immigration enforcement purposes and requires documentation of the increasing to 18 positions and reason for certain inquiries beginning July 1, 2021. DOJ requests additional $2.9 million annually in 2022-23 resources to modify the system, ensure compliance, and defend the law in court. Chapter 840 of 2019 3 positions (2 permanent, 1 limited Authorizes certain licensed community care facilities to centrally store the (SB 172, Portantino) term) and $379,000 (General firearms and ammunition belonging to their residents upon verification with Fund) in 2020-21, declining to DOJ that the firearms were appropriately registered. DOJ requests resources $211,000 annually in 2022-23 to develop regulations and to address increased firearm registration verification requests. Other Workload Bureau of Gambling 30 positions and $5.4 million DOJ requests resources to (1) allow the bureau to shift to a proactive approach Control—Increased (Gambling Control Fund) in towards regulation of the cardroom industry and (2) hire two attorneys Cardroom Oversight 2020-21 and $5.6 million annually and a legal secretary for various responsibilities, such as legal review of in 2021-22 bureau correspondence and attending meetings with attorneys representing licensees. www.lao.ca.gov 55 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET upon verification with DOJ that the firearms Consumer Law Section could be used to were appropriately registered . Accordingly, implement Chapters 452 and 750 . We note it unknown at this time (1) the number of that DOJ reports that the workload associated facilities that would choose to store firearms with these measures would require about and (2) the number of residents that would 3,200 hours . choose to do so . For example, facilities could determine that for insurance, liability, or other Recommendations reasons that it would not be a beneficial In view of our above assessment of the business practice for them to accept and Governor’s proposals, we recommend that the store firearms and ammunition . To the extent Legislature (1) reject proposals that are premature that DOJ finds that the measure results in a or are for workload that can be addressed with large increase in workload, the department existing resources or with improvements to existing could always request additional resources at processes, (2) modify those proposals that include that time . requests for some resources that are not justified Other Requests Unnecessary With Approval at this time, and (3) reject proposals that are of Another Budget Proposal. We find the unnecessary given a separate proposal elsewhere need for requested resources in three of the in the Governor’s budget for DOJ that would Governor’s proposals are unnecessary given that address the identified workload . We note that our there is a separate proposal elsewhere in the recommendations would not prevent the various Governor’s budget for DOJ that would address pieces of legislation from being implemented as the identified workload . Specifically, in addition envisioned by the Legislature . Specifically, we to the 11 proposals discussed in this section, the recommend that the Legislature: Governor proposes 37 positions and $9 million • Reject proposed resources related to from various funds to support a new Healthcare Chapters 432, 581, 726, and 840 . Rights and Access (HRA) Section that would focus on litigation to ensure compliance with the • Modify four proposals as follows: state’s health-care related laws . (We do not raise » Approve only one-year, limited-term funding concerns with that proposal .) As such, we find that for Chapter 589 . DOJ would not need the requested resources to » Do not approve the two limited-term implement: positions for Chapter 737—one attorney and one legal secretary—related to • Chapter 531 of 2019 (AB 824, Wood). We defending the law in court . find that DOJ would be able to investigate » Do not approve the two positions—one anticompetitive activities in the pharmaceutical attorney and one legal secretary—that are industry with the additional resources for the proposed for Chapter 789 on an ongoing new HRA Section, which would have complete basis beginning in 2021-22 . flexibility in determining the cases it pursues . » Do not approve three positions—two • Chapter 452 of 2019 (AB 1132, Gabriel) and attorneys and one legal secretary—related Chapter 750 of 2019 (AB 1130, Levine). A to providing BGC with in-house legal significant portion of the workload that would resources . be handled by the HRA Section is currently supported by resources from the Consumer • Reject proposed resources related to Law and Antitrust Sections . Specifically, DOJ Chapters 452, 531, and 750 . However, if reports using an estimated 20,000 hours the Legislature does not approve a separate annually from the Consumer Law Section to proposal to establish a new HRA Section, we address workload that would be addressed would recommend approval of the proposed by the new HRA Section . As a result, the resources to implement Chapters 452, 531, resources that would be freed-up in the and 750 . 56 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET LICENSING STAFF FOR BUREAU OF financial statements . Since 2015-16, the section has received limited-term funding to address a GAMBLING CONTROL growing backlog of licensing investigations cases . The Governor’s budget proposes $867,000 Despite these additional resources, the backlog (Gambling Control Fund) and 8 nonanalyst has persisted . Currently, the section has 52 analyst positions to take on some of the tasks currently positions—32 supported by limited-term funding being completed by the 52 analyst positions and 20 supported by ongoing funding—tasked with currently conducting background investigations, completing background investigations . including 32 positions funded on a limited-term Concerns Raised in Audit of Cardroom basis. We find that it is premature to approve Licensing. The Legislature directed the California the proposed positions before the full impact State Auditor (CSA) to conduct an audit of the of recently implemented efficiencies is known cardroom licensing process . In May 2019, CSA and the Legislature determines how many identified three major concerns related to BGC . analyst positions to approve as part of the Specifically, CSA found that (1) inefficiencies 2021-22 budget when the limited-term funding have driven delays and compounded backlogs in currently supporting the 32 positions expires. licensing processes; (2) fees charged do not align with regulatory costs, resulting in fairness concerns; Background and (3) inconsistent regulations and practices have BGC. The BGC within DOJ and the California resulted in the unequal treatment of applicants . Gambling Control Commission jointly regulate CSA also made specific recommendations for the the state’s gambling industry—which currently bureau to address these findings . These included includes 86 cardrooms and 65 tribal casinos . implementing procedural changes to improve the The bureau has investigation, compliance, and timeliness and efficiency of processing applications enforcement responsibilities, while the commission (for example ensuring that analysts spend most has policymaking, licensing, and adjudication of their time on actual licensing workload), responsibilities . In 2019-20, the bureau received developing a plan to address the remaining backlog nearly $36 million to support its workload . Of the strategically and accountably, and conducting a total, about 42 percent comes from the Gambling cost analysis of all of its activities . Additionally, Control Fund (GCF)—which receives revenue CSA recommended that the Legislature extend the from the cardroom industry—and nearly all of the limited-term funding for the 32 analyst positions remainder from tribal gaming revenues . for another two years, which was done as part of the 2019-20 budget . According to CSA, this Licensing Section Workload. State law would allow the backlog to be cleared and provide generally requires businesses, business owners, the Legislature time to consider long-term staffing and employees who operate, work, or benefit from needs after taking into consideration the impacts of gaming activities to be licensed . Businesses or the implementation of the recommendations . individuals submit applications to either obtain a license or renew a license, along with a processing Governor’s Proposal fee, to the bureau . The bureau is then responsible for conducting background investigations and The Governor’s budget proposes eight new making recommendations to the commission on nonanalyst positions and $867,000 (GCF) in whether licenses should be approved, renewed, 2020-21 and $779,000 annually beginning in or denied . The length of time it takes to conduct 2021-22 for BGC . These positions would take on such investigations depends on the type of license . some of the tasks currently being completed by For example, the investigations related to business the 52 analyst positions conducting background owner license applications can be significantly more investigations . According to DOJ, shifting these extensive than for a regular cardroom employee . tasks would allow the 52 analysts completing These investigations include various inquiries, such background checks to increase their productivity as a criminal background check and a review of and efficiency by reducing their workload that www.lao.ca.gov 57 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET is not directly related to processing background additional resources to address its workload on an checks . The tasks that would be shifted to the ongoing basis . eight nonanalyst positions include checking Moreover, this request should be considered whether applications are completed, imaging case concurrently with a request for ongoing resources files, coordinating requests, completing database for analyst positions . This is because these inquires, and creating files . nonanalyst positions directly impact the need for the analyst positions . By approving these Request for Resources Is Premature nonanalyst positions, the ongoing need for We find that the request for the additional the analyst positions should decline given that resources is premature . BGC has only recently some analyst workload is being shifted to them . taken steps to implement a number of the Therefore, it is premature to approve these recommendations made by CSA . This means that positions before the Legislature determines how the full impact of such changes on the overall many analyst positions to approve as part of licensing process is still unknown . For example, the 2021-22 budget, given that the two-year, CSA recommended BGC reassess its policies on limited-term funding currently supporting the how much time analysts spend on actual licensing 32 positions expires at the end of 2020-21 . workload as well as how they report spending their Recommendation time . This should make analysts more productive as they should be reducing time spent on workload Reject Proposal. In light of the above unrelated to licensing . This should reduce the total concerns, we recommend the Legislature reject the amount of resources needed on an ongoing basis Governor’s proposal to provide $867,000 (GCF) for to process cases . Only after these efficiencies have eight nonanalyst positions . been fully implemented will it be possible for the Legislature to determine whether the bureau needs 58 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendation Cross Cutting Issue Combining the state’s Delay temporarily the planned consolidation of victim services Direct administration to provide a time line for programs for victim programs. consolidation of victim programs. Consider directing services administration to complete the consolidation within a designated time frame if administration does not provide time line. Probation funding and $71 million in 2020-21 ($11 million ongoing) from the General Reject proposals and instead expand SB 678 funding reforms Fund and trailer bill legislation to (1) modify the SB 678 formula to reward counties for keeping misdemeanor funding formula, (2) require increased supervision of certain probationers out of prison. misdemeanor probationers and provide limited-term funding to support this supervision, and (3) reduce the length of felony and misdemeanor probation. Indigent defense grant $10 million (General Fund) one time for a pilot program to Direct administration to provide details, including the program provide grants to eligible county public defender offices for primary goals of the program, by April 15, 2020. indigent defense services. Withhold recommendation until this information is provided, but reject proposal if not provided. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Trends in the adult $29.5 million reduction (primarily General Fund) for various Withhold recommendation until May Revision. inmate and parolee adjustments associated with inmate and parolee caseload populations changes. Conservation camps Estimates that the average daily conservation camp population Direct CDCR to report at budget hearings on (1) what will be 2,900 inmates in 2020-21, which would leave options it is considering (if any) to increase the 37 percent of camp beds vacant. camp population and (2) the feasibility of removing restrictions on camp eligibility for certain low-risk inmates. Correctional staff training $21.4 million in 2020-21 ($19.8 million ongoing) from the Reject 42 of the requested 85 positions and associated and job shadowing General Fund to implement various initiatives to improve $6.7 million due to lack of justification and require the correctional staff training, such as a facility for hands-on administration to provide an annual report on training officer training and job shadowing program. outcomes. Applying credits to $504,000 in 2020-21 ($796,000 ongoing) from the General Reduce proposal by $258,000 in 2021-22 ($516,000 advance youth Fund to make information technology upgrades and for ongoing) based on a more reasonable workload offender parole staff to process parole eligibility date changes when certain estimate. hearings inmates earn credits for significant achievements. Exonerated housing $621,000 in 2020-21 ($1.6 million ongoing) from the General Reduce proposal by $321,000 in 2020-21 assistance Fund to provide housing assistance to exonerated individuals. ($1 million ongoing) based on more reasonable cost assumptions. Expansion of the Male $280,000 in 2020-21 ($6 million ongoing) from the General Reject proposal given that the results of an ongoing Community Reentry Fund to expand MCRP by opening a new 80 to 100 bed evaluation of MCRP are expected to be available in Program (MCRP) facility. December 2020. Expansion of higher $1.8 million in 2020-21 ($3.5 million ongoing) from the General Withhold action and direct the administration to education opportunities Fund for CDCR to partner with five California State University coordinate with the CSU system to provide updates on for inmates (CSU) campuses to provide in-person instruction for the final the structure and necessary resources for the program two years of four-year college degrees for up to 350 inmates. no later than the May Revision. Technology for inmates $27 million in 2020-21 ($18 million ongoing) from the General Approve proposal but adopt budget trailer legislation to participating in Fund to provide inmates in academic programs with thin- require a cost-effectiveness evaluation be completed. academic programs client laptops and access to other technologies to improve academic outcomes. Medication room projects $31.7 million (General Fund) for the construction phase of Withhold action and direct the department to report at medication room projects at 13 prisons. budget hearings on its medication room needs. (Continued) www.lao.ca.gov 59 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendation Telehealth services $2 million (General Fund) for the preliminary plans phase of a Reject proposal and adopt supplemental report building project to construct office space for telehealth providers. language directing the administration to develop an alternative plan to implement telecommuting. Psychiatric registry $1.4 million (General Fund) for psychiatric registry services. Approve request on a one-time basis as the amount of funding funding needed beyond 2020-21 is unclear. Contract medical Make ongoing a $61.9 million (General Fund) augmentation Withhold action and direct CDCR to report at budget services provided in 2019-20 for contract medical services. hearings on specific steps it will take to increase the amount of federal reimbursement the state receives and the amount of additional reimbursements such actions would create. Medical imaging $1.5 million in 2020-21 ($2.3 million ongoing) from the General Approve proposal but also reduce CDCR’s base budget equipment Fund to replace medical imaging equipment and fund a for medical guarding by $150,000 per year (increasing maintenance and warranty contract. annually to $1.5 million) to account for an anticipated reduction in medical escorts. Department of Youth and Community Restoration (DYCR) Resources and $19.8 million (General Fund) to support the reorganization and Approve the $19.8 million but reject the provisional augmentation authority establishment of DYCR and provisional language authorizing language authorizing the administration to augment to establish DYCR the administration to augment DYCR’s budget by an additional DYCR’s budget by an additional $10 million due to lack $10 million to further support the reorganization. of justification. Training for Youth $5.6 million (General Fund) to provide resources to train up to Modify proposal to approve a total of $3.2 million in Correctional 120 cadets and establish a job shadowing program. 2020-21 and 2021-22 as this is sufficient to address Counselors and typical hiring needs. This would allow the department Officers time to better estimate its needs and correct a technical budgeting error. Judicial Branch Online adjudication of $11.5 million in 2020-21 ($56 million ongoing) from the General Reject proposal as the impacts of the online adjudication infractions Fund to expand statewide the use of an online adjudication tool are still uncertain and it is premature to expand tool and backfill resulting reductions in criminal fine and fee the tool prior to the completion of the required revenue for the judicial branch. evaluation of the program. Court Navigator Program $8.1 million in 2020-21 ($15.5 million ongoing) from the General Reject proposal as it is premature to consider it for Fund to establish a Court Navigator Program in trial courts. various reasons, including because the proposed program would provide some services that are already provided by trial courts. County Office of Estimates that the amount of excess property tax revenue Adjust trial court offset in 2020-21 upward to account for Education offset of trial available to offset General Fund support for trial courts will property tax growth in 2019-20. Preliminary estimates court General Fund not increase above the 2019-20 level of $90.1 million. indicate a $23.8 million adjustment, but updated data support will be available in the spring to further refine the estimate. (Continued) 60 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendation Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Forensic $32 million (General Fund) one time to backfill declines in fine Approve proposals. Require local agencies to partially Services (BFS) and fee revenue in the DNA Identification Fund. $9.5 million support BFS beginning in 2021-22. Direct DOJ to support (General Fund) for the site acquisition and planning phase develop a plan to implement this change and to of a project to construct a new consolidated forensic science update its future facility request to reflect any resulting campus. $8.2 million (General Fund) ongoing for equipment impacts on BFS. replacement, facility maintenance, and new workload. Firearm precursor parts $5 million (General Fund) in both 2020-21 and 2021-22 to Reject proposal as the expedited time frame would expedite the implementation of new firearm precursor parts likely result in higher costs and increase the risk that regulatory requirements. this technology project and others are delayed or not completed successfully. Resources to implement $15.3 million in 2020-21 ($12.5 million ongoing) from various Reject or modify proposals because (1) workload can be legislation and other fund sources for 11 different proposals—ten related to accommodated within existing resources or addressed workload recently enacted legislation and one related to workload in alternative ways, (2) it is premature to provide changes for the oversight of cardrooms. some or all of the resources, and (3) proposals are unnecessary given a separate proposal that would address the workload. Licensing staff for Bureau $867,000 in 2020-21 ($779,000 ongoing) from the Gambling Reject proposal as it is premature to approve it before of Gambling Control Control Fund to support nonanalyst positions that would take ongoing resource needs for the section are known. on some of the tasks currently being completed by analysts conducting background investigations. www.lao.ca.gov 61 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET 62 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 63 analysis full gutter 2020-21 BUDGET PUBLIC SAFETY UNIT Helen Kerstein Victim Grant Programs 916-319-8364 Helen.Kerstein@lao.ca.gov Luke Koushmaro Youth and Community Restoration 916-319-8355 Luke.Koushmaro@lao.ca.gov Probation Inmate Health and Rehabilitation Anita Lee Judicial Branch 916-319-8321 Anita.Lee@lao.ca.gov Department of Justice Indigent Defense Caitlin O’Neil Prisons 916-319-8351 Caitlin.O’Neil@lao.ca.gov LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was reviewed by Drew Soderborg and Anthony Simbol. 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. 64 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE