Cash revenues from April were down about $3.7 billion, more than expected, and only about half the $7 billion in requested federal revenue could be mustered.  Coupled with the current deficit carryover, the state is facing roughly a $19.1 billion dollar deficit.  Worse, as the Governor repeatedly said, “all the low, medium, and high hanging fruit has been picked,” leaving, what many would term, only “draconian” choices for the 2010-2011 budget.

Indeed, the Governor’s May Revise decimates California’s social safety net, particularly community mental health and Cal WORKS (the “Welfare to Work” Program).  It also proposes continuing public employee “take aways” and major public employee pension reforms.  In addition, it shifts greater financial responsibility from state to local governments in many social service programs, such as foster care, child welfare, and food stamps, as well as a major proposed shift of responsibilities from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to local public safety agencies.  The “good news” is that there are no further cuts for local public safety funding from the VLF, and the local transportation (“HUTA” funds) funding was left intact!

Here are the key public safety components of the Governor’s budget:

VLF Funding for Public Safety

As part of the 2008 “budget deal,” the Legislature and Governor agreed that funding for vital public safety programs, like COPS, juvenile justice, camps, and other critical programs, should be moved from the General Fund to the Vehicle License Fee Fund.  They approved a temporary ¼ cent fee increase to cover the costs of all those public safety programs transferred.  Although the overall revenues from the fee have diminished about 20% due to fewer vehicle registrations, the VLF has been a relatively stable source of revenue for funding our public safety programs.  However, since Proposition 1 A was not approved by the voters, the public safety funding in the VLF “sunsets” in June 2011.  Since extension or elimination of the sunset requires a 2/3 vote – which is a tax increase and unlikely in an election year – the Governor has proposed transferring the public safety funding back to the General Fund when VLF funding expires, and making the public safety fund “continuously appropriated.” Translated, this is budget speak for, “We are trying to make this as easy as possible to you going forward.” 

Governor’s Correction’s Plan – A Major Shift of Responsibility to Local Government.

Governor Schwarzenegger was kind enough to give Local 685 a “sneak preview” of this year’s budget revise in a corner office meeting several days in advance of the issuance of the May Revise.  He pointed out that the correction’s proposal (and other actions) would never have been considered, except for the “awful” budget problem facing California.  There were no doubters of his veracity.

In the May Revise, the Governor proposed to increase the current one year County jail limit on certain crimes to three years, applicable only to those who are considered to be “non-serious, non-violent and non-sex offenders.” Statewide, this would be a permanent shift of roughly 15,000 prisoners that would not be sent to state prison but, instead, would need to be dealt with at the local level. The state will provide the counties with $11,500 on an ADP basis per diverted offender for probation services, drug courts, alternative custody, day reporting centers and other “evidence based” programs through a block grant program. The block grant will be allocated to the Community Corrections Performance Incentive Fund in each County to address the local program needs.  The criminal justice councils will advice the CPO regarding this program in conjunction with their duties under the provisions in SB 678. The block grant will be funded from state savings by having non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenders serve their time locally or by being diverted into local “evidence based” programs or alternate custody, ultimately increasing the daily local jail, probation, or alternative custody population by approximately 15,000 individuals.

Increased Role for Juvenile Probation

The May Revise also focuses on an increasing role for juvenile probation by permanently shifting wards from DJJ to local probation.  The state will provide the counties with $15,000 on an ADP basis per juvenile parolee for probation monitoring and services through a block grant program.  For each parolee, this funding will be provided for a 24-month period.  These funds will be allocated to County probation to address local program needs.  County probation will be advised by the local multijurisdictional juvenile justice coordinating council regarding this program, similar to the way that Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act funds are managed at the local level.  In 2010–2011, approximately 500 wards will be released from DJJ and placed under the jurisdiction of County probation.  Once fully implemented, there will be approximately 1,700 juvenile parolees under County jurisdiction. 

How Does the Governor’s Correction’s Plan Impact Us?

One of the major difficulties with the Administration’s proposal is the lack of resources necessary to support the proposed permanent shift of Corrections or DJJ responsibility. First, there is simply inadequate bed space in Los Angeles County and around the state to accommodate and support the increased population diverted away from state corrections or DJJ. The proposed ADP rate for both adults and juveniles is only about 1/6 the actual amount needed to support the proposed population shift. Fully funding the shift eliminates any budgetary savings which, of course, is the whole point of the proposal in the first place. If there were sufficient funding – if the funding source were relatively stable and ongoing – if the physical bed space were actually available – if all these conditions were adequately addressed, then perhaps the Governor’s proposal may have traction. However, why would anyone take on a responsibility as serious as supervising prisoners or juvenile wards unless there were adequate resources and personnel to manage the populations? 

Where Do We Go from Here?

Fortunately, the Governor has indicated he wants to work with local public safety groups, like Local 685, to craft a proposal best suited to local public safety.  He indicated he is flexible on what a finished product would look like so long as CDCR can realize a budgetary savings.  This is an enormous challenge for local public safety as there are no good solutions, only solutions which may be less ONEROUS than what has been proposed.  In my opinion, it would be an enormous mistake if local governments were to take responsibility for the shift in the state correction’s program – and the supervision responsibility of 15,000 adults or 1,700 juveniles without an adequate and permanent funding source!  That seems unlikely to happen in an era of state and local budgetary shortfalls, so the challenge now will be to come up with a viable correction’s alternative in a very short time!

Until next time, stay safe!