Bill Text

Bill Information

PDF |Add To My Favorites | print page

AB-915 Youth Community Incentives Act of 2013.(2013-2014)

SHARE THIS:share this bill in Facebookshare this bill in Twitter
AB915:v98#DOCUMENT

Amended  IN  Assembly  April 16, 2013

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill
No. 915


Introduced by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer

February 22, 2013


An act to add Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 1990) to Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to youthful offenders, and making an appropriation therefor.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 915, as amended, Jones-Sawyer. Juvenile Youth Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2013.
Existing law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund to be used to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, and other departments to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to specified youthful offenders.
This bill, the Juvenile Youth Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2013, would permit each county to establish in each county treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account. The bill would require the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, to calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising juvenile youth offenders who have committed certain specified offenses for the fiscal year 2013–13 2012–13 and every year thereafter and, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to would annually allocate 75% the savings realized to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account, which would be created by this bill, for the purposes specified in this bill, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require, in any fiscal year for which a county receives money pursuant to these provisions, the funds to be made available to the local Community Corrections Partnership of that county the chief probation officer to be utilized to improve local probation supervision practices and capacities serving juvenile offenders and for the implementation or enhancement of recognized best practices for serving high-need youth offenders. The bill would require that 40% of the funds be allocated proportionally and directly to those counties with net decreases in new admissions of juvenile youth offenders to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, 40% to be available to fund a block grant program, as specified, and 20% to be available to fund technical assistance for counties in the ongoing implementation of model best practices for serving certain specified juvenile offenders.
The bill would require county probation departments receiving funds pursuant to the bill to develop and submit a youth supervision and rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community Corrections. The bill would require the chief probation officer to prepare and submit a report on the use of the funds to the Board of State and Community Corrections after approval by the juvenile justice coordinating counsel for that county. By imposing new duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: MAJORITY2/3   Appropriation: NOYES   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NOYES  

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1.

 This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Youth Community Incentives Act of 2013.

SEC. 2.

 Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 1990) is added to Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
CHAPTER  1.7. Youth Community Incentives
Article  1. General Provisions

1990.
 (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) Counties are steadily decreasing their new admissions of youth offenders who have committed offenses specified in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of this code and Section 290 of the Penal Code to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
(2) This trend of decreasing new DJF admissions indicates that counties are consistently serving an increased number of DJF-eligible youth at the local level. However, they are doing so without any additional resources or accountability from the state.
(3) Local youth offender justice programs are uniquely positioned to deliver successful rehabilitative services for California’s high-need and high-risk youth offenders. Counties are well situated to develop or enhance partnerships with community-based service providers that can deliver individualized treatment through case management, mental health services, alcohol and drug counseling, and reentry support, with gender responsive, culturally competent, and trauma-informed care.
(4) Research has shown that improved outcomes for youth tend to occur in local facilities with low staff-to-ward ratios, and in community-based programs that utilize best practices and have a focus on individualized treatment. Individual youth offenders have improved outcomes when they are provided access to appropriate services within the context of well-designed programs and systems that demonstrate a collaboration between county probation departments and community-based services.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to promote best practices at the county level for serving youth offenders.

1991.
 As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Juvenile justice coordinating council” means a multiagency council established pursuant to Section 749.22 for the development of effective county-based programs and practices for juvenile justice.
(b) “DJF-eligible” means youth offenders who have committed an offense specified in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of this code or Section 290 of the Penal Code.
(c) “Best practices” refers to supervision, treatment, and rehabilitative policies, programs, procedures, and practices understood by the collective experience and expertise of the field of juvenile justice to reduce recidivism and improve long-term life outcomes among youth offenders. Examples of best practices include strengths-based, individualized, family-centered, culturally competent services, positive youth development frameworks, gender responsive programming, trauma-informed care, and accurate data tracking of recidivism rates and long-term life outcomes for supervised youth. “Facility-based best practices” also include those identified by the Missouri Division of Youth Services for successful supervision of high-need and high-risk youth offenders, including, but not limited to, use of smaller facilities closer to the youth’s home, individualized attention in small group settings, creating a safe and positive staff and peer culture in facilities, family integration in rehabilitation and after care planning, and academic and vocational skill building.
(d) “Positive outcomes” refer to improved reentry and performance of youth following contact with the juvenile justice system. This may include improved educational performance, development of employment and life skills, access to healthcare and mental health services, and lowered recidivism rates.
(e) “High-need youth” refers to youth with multiple risk factors, including, but not limited to, those who are from low-income families, have disabilities, development delays, learning disabilities, substance abuse issues, trauma or mental health needs, or are homeless or in foster care.
(f) “High-risk youth” refers to youth who have been determined, by a validated risk assessment tool, to be at high risk of reoffense resulting in the possibility of a new DJF-eligible offense resulting in the sustained petition within one year.
(g) “Chief probation officer” means the chief probation officer for the county, or city and county, in which a youth offender is subject to probation for the commission of a DJF-eligible offense.

1992.
 (a) Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each county treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account to receive all amounts allocated to that county for the purposes of implementing this chapter.
(b) Allocations for the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account may be used by the chief probation officer to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, or other county departments and community-based organizations to provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision for DJF-eligible youth.
(c) In any fiscal year for which a county receives money to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys, including any interest, shall be made available to the chief probation officer, by the juvenile justice coordinating council of that county, within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the fund, only for the purposes specified in Section 1996.

1993.
 (a) Beginning July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising DJF-eligible youth offenders who have committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of this code or Section 290 of the Penal Code who were in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, DJF for the 2012–13 fiscal year.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by every July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising DJF-eligible youth offenders who have committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 who were in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, DJF in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance shall calculate the savings to the state, if savings are realized, by subtracting the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (b) from the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (a). Seventy-five percent of that amount is hereby appropriated from the General Fund and shall be transferred annually by the Controller to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B which is hereby established as a continuously appropriated fund.
(d) The Department of Finance shall determine the allocation to be made to each county pursuant to Sections 1994 and 1995, and shall report those amounts to the Controller. The Controller shall make an allocation from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account to each county’s Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account in accordance with the report.

1994.
 Subject to subdivisions (d) and (e) and subject to Article 2, the amounts deposited in the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1993 shall be allocated as follows:
(a) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1 of each year thereafter, 40 percent of the funds in the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be allocated proportionally and directly to those counties with a net decrease in new admissions of youthful offenders to DJF compared to new admissions of youthful offenders to DJF for the 2012–13 fiscal year. The purpose of this funding is to increase the capacity of those counties with net decreases of youth admissions to DJF to provide supervision and rehabilitation services using best practices. The proportional funding allocated pursuant to this subdivision shall be calculated pursuant to Section 1995.
(b) (1) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1 of each year thereafter, 40 percent of the funds in the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be available to fund a block grant program whereby each county may apply for funds in order to increase capacity for serving the county’s population of DJF-eligible youth, using best practices. The funding made available pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated on the basis of a competitive grant that is open to all counties and is not limited to counties showing decreases in new admissions to DJF.
(2) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall oversee the competitive grant process, including the development of a request for proposal process and an annual report describing the use of expenditures made pursuant to this subdivision. The request for proposal process shall include requirements regarding the number of DJF-eligible youth served, as determined by the board.
(c) (1) No later than January 1, 2015, and no later than January 1 of each year thereafter, 20 percent of the funds in the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be made available to fund technical assistance for counties in the ongoing implementation of best practices for servicing DJF-eligible youth, or for those counties developing programs to serve a combination of DJF-eligible and non-DJF-eligible youth offenders.
(2) The Board of State and Community Corrections shall oversee the development of a request for proposal process for the technical assistance funding available pursuant to paragraph (1). The request for proposal process shall include requirements regarding the number of DJF-eligible youth served, as determined by the board.
(d) If discretionary prosecutorial direct filings to adult court, as specified in subdivision (d) of Section 707, increase by more than 5 percent from the 2012–13 fiscal year baseline for any county receiving allocations pursuant to this section, that county shall not receive any funding pursuant to this chapter.
(e) This subdivision shall supercede subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) if the amount allocated to the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account for any given year is three million dollars ($3,000,000) or less, in which event all of the funds in the account shall be available to fund technical assistance pursuant to subdivision (c) for counties in the ongoing implementation of best practices for serving DJF-eligible youth, or for those counties developing programs to serve a combination of DJF-eligible and non-DJF-eligible youth offenders.

1995.
 The proportional funding allocation required by subdivision (a) of Section 1994 shall be calculated as follows:
(a) Beginning July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, shall calculate the number of admissions committed by each county to DJF, for the 2012–13 fiscal year.
(b) Beginning July 2013, and by July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the number of new admissions committed by each county to DJF in the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(c) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the net decrease in new admissions to DJF from each county by subtracting the amount calculated annually pursuant to subdivision (b) for each county from the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (a) for each county. If the result is zero or below for any given county, that county shall not be eligible to receive funds from the allocation made pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1994.
(d) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the total net decrease in new admissions committed by those counties demonstrating decreases in new admissions to DJF in the immediately preceding fiscal year, by summing those counties’ net decreases calculated pursuant to subdivision (c).
(e) Beginning July 1, 2014, and by July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the proportional decrease in new admissions for each county by dividing each county’s net decrease in new admissions calculated pursuant to subdivision (c) by the total net decrease in new admissions calculated pursuant to subdivision (d).
(f) (1) The proportional funding allocation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1994 for each county shall be determined by multiplying the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (e) by the total funding allocation specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1994 and shall be directly allocated to each county.
(2) Any portion of funds described in paragraph (1) that is unused within 12 months of receipt shall revert to the county’s Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account for future use, as specified by Section 1996.

Article  2. Performance and Accountability

1996.
 (a) Money allocated to each county’s Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account shall be utilized to improve local probation supervision practices and capacity to serve DJF-eligible youth offenders, utilizing best practices. County probation departments receiving Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account allocations shall, in coordination with the local juvenile justice coordinating counsel, develop and submit a youth supervision and rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community Corrections for approval for use of the funds described in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 1994, as follows:
(1) Best practices shall be identified and defined by the Board of State and Community Corrections using the collective experience and expertise of the juvenile justice field, and shall include core values with proven results, including, but not limited to, strengths-based, individualized, family-centered, gender responsive, culturally competent services, positive youth development frameworks, and trauma-informed care.
(2) Positive outcomes shall be identified and defined by the Board of State and Community Corrections using the collective experience and expertise of the juvenile justice field, and shall include, but not be limited to, improved educational performance, development of employment and life skills, improved access to healthcare and mental health services, enhanced public safety, and reduced recidivism of DJF-eligible youth offenders, and a reduction in the number of youth offenders sentenced to DJF.
(3) Technical assistance allocations shall be utilized for funding site visits between county probation departments, consultations with state and national experts, improvements to probation data systems related to youth offenders, matching grants with private foundations who are investing in county best practices, or for other purposes approved by the Board of State and Community Corrections that are aligned with the purposes of improving the supervision and rehabilitation of DJF-eligible youth offenders under this chapter.
(4) The chief probation officer shall devote a minimum of 5 percent of all funding received pursuant to this chapter to enhancing data capacity relevant to monitoring the programs and practices implemented with the funds pursuant to this chapter. A chief probation officer may petition the Board of State and Community Corrections to have this restriction waived, and the Board of State and Community Corrections shall have the authority to grant the petition, if the chief probation officer can demonstrate that the department is already developing sufficient funds to the evaluation of these programs and practices.
(b) A portion of the funds allocated pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1994 shall be used to fund a full-time position with the Board of State and Community Corrections to oversee grant processes, including the development and administration of the request for proposal process specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1994. The staff person shall monitor and evaluate any programs or facilities supported by funds allocated pursuant to this bill, including site visits for all appropriate counties.
(c) No later than 15 months following the initial receipt of funding, the chief probation officer shall prepare and submit a comprehensive report for each funding stream received through the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B to the local juvenile justice coordinating council for review and approval. Within two weeks of approval by the juvenile justice coordinating council, the chief probation officer shall submit the report to the Board of State and Community Corrections. The report shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following information:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, or strategies, including measurable performance outcomes, funded by each block grant allocation made pursuant to this chapter.
(2) The effectiveness of the practices described in paragraph (1) based on performance outcomes.
(3) The number of DJF-eligible youth served by the county for the year in which the report is being made.
(4) The percentage of DJF-eligible youth served by the county who are being supervised in accordance with best practices.
(5) The impact of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter on reducing recidivism in DJF-eligible youth offenders and reducing the number of youth offenders who are sent to DJF for the year in which the report is being made.
(6) The number of youth offenders transferred to adult court pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 707.
(7) A specification of the supervision policies, procedures, programs, and practices that were eliminated as a result of pursuing best practices.
(8) Any recommendations regarding resource allocations or additional collaboration with other local, state, regional, or federal entities for improvements to this chapter.
(9) Itemized allocations from the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund Part B account to enhance the capacity of county probation, mental health, drug and alcohol, or other county departments, and community-based organizations for the purposes of providing appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services for DJF-eligible youth.

1997.
 The Board of State and Community Corrections may enforce violations of grant requirements or direct allocations with suspensions or cancellations of grant funds. Violations may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Failure to submit a proper youth supervision and rehabilitation plan to the Board of State and Community Corrections pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1996 within three months of the receipt of funds.
(b) Failure to submit a proper comprehensive report to the Board of State and Community Corrections pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1996 within 15 months of the receipt of funds.
(c) Failure to use allocations pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 1994 appropriately to fund best practices or positive outcomes, as determined by the Board of State and Community Corrections through site visits or other means of review.

1998.
 The moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter shall supplement, but not supplant, any other state or county appropriation for the juvenile justice coordinating counsel or the chief probation officer, or both. The moneys appropriated pursuant to this chapter shall not be used to supplant any other county funding sources not expressly specified in this chapter.

SEC. 3.

 If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1.Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 1990) is added to Division 2.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
1.7.Juvenile Community Corrections Performance Incentives
1990.

This act shall be known and may be cited as the Juvenile Community Corrections Performance Incentives Act of 2013.

1991.

(a)No later than July 1, 2014, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising juvenile offenders who have committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 who were in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice for the 2012–13 fiscal year.

(b)No later than July 1, 2014, and every July 1 thereafter, the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the Chief Probation Officers of California, shall calculate the cost to the state of housing and supervising juvenile offenders who have committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 who were in the custody of, or subject to supervision by, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice in the immediately preceding fiscal year.

(c)Beginning July 1, 2014, and no later than July 1 of each year thereafter, the Department of Finance shall calculate the savings to the state, if savings are realized, by subtracting the amount calculated annually pursuant to subdivision (b) from the amount calculated pursuant to subdivision (a). Of this amount, 75 percent shall, upon appropriation by the Legislature, be set aside and allocated as specified in Section 1993.

1992.

(a)Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each county treasury a Youthful Offender Block Grant Part B account, to receive all amounts allocated to that county pursuant to Section 1993.

(b)In any fiscal year for which a county receives money to be expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys, including any interest, shall be made available to the local Community Corrections Partnership of that county for the purposes specified in Section 1994.

1993.

The amounts calculated pursuant to subdivision (c) shall be allocated as follows:

(a)Forty percent shall be allocated proportionally and directly to those counties with net decreases in new admissions of juvenile offenders to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice over the fiscal year 2012–13 baseline new commitments.

(b)Forty percent shall be available to fund a block grant program whereby each county may apply for funds in order to increase capacity for serving the county’s population of juvenile offenders who committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707. The funding made available pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated on the basis of a competitive grant that is open to all counties and is not limited to counties showing decreases in new admissions to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice.

(c)Twenty percent shall be available to fund technical assistance for counties in the ongoing implementation of model practices for serving juvenile offenders who committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707, or for those counties developing programs to serve a combination of juvenile offenders who committed an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 and other juvenile offenders. A portion of these funds may be used to fund staff positions within the Board of State and Community Corrections.

1994.

Money allocated to each county Youthful Offender Block Grant Part B account shall be utilized to improve local probation supervision practices and capacities serving juvenile offenders committed for offenses specified in subdivision (b) of Section 707 and for the implementation or enhancement of recognized best practices for serving high-need youth offenders. Best practices shall be identified and defined by the Board of State and Community Corrections, and shall include core values with proven results, including, but not limited to, strengths-based, individualized, family-centered, culturally competent services, positive youth development frameworks, and trauma-informed care.