The 2014-15 Budget-Governor’s Criminal Justice Proposals

8/13/2019 The 2014-15 Budget-Governors Criminal Justice Proposals

1/60

M AC TAY LO R L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T F ER B R UA R Y 1 9 , 2 01 4

The 2014-15 Budget:

GovernorsCriminal Justice Proposals


2/60

2014 15 BUDGET

2 Legislative Analysts Of ce www.lao.ca.gov

CONTENTS

Executive Summary .............................................................................. .............................................. 3

Criminal Justice Budget Overview ....................................................................................................5

Judicial Branch ......................................................................... ........................................................... 7Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................$100 Million General Fund Augmentation for Trial Court Operations .......................................................8 Trial Court Reserves Policy ........................................................................................................................................ 1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ............................................................ 19Adult Prison Population Projected to Increase and

Parolee Population Projected to Decline .........................................................................................................20Prison Staffing and Overtime .................................................................................................................................23Academy Augmentation ...........................................................................................................................................31Drug Interdiction Proposal .......................................................................................................................................33

Federal Receiver for Inmate Medical Services ...................................................................................................35Capital Outlay ..............................................................................................................................................................

Local Public Safety............................................................................................................................44Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................County Jails Grants .....................................................................................................................................................Requiring Sentences Longer Than Ten Years Be Served in State Prison ...................................................49Changes to Split Sentencing ...................................................................................................................................50POST ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Summary of LAO Recommendations ..............................................................................................55


3/60


4/60

2014 15 BUDGET


administration has not carried out an adequate analysis o the extent to which counties needadditional unds. Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature direct the administrationto carry out such an analysis by assessing (1) the ex tent to which counties have maximizedthe use o existing jail space, (2) how e ectively counties plan to use any proposed space or

rehabilitation programs, and (3) the ability o counties to und projects with local resources.


5/60

2014 15 BUDGET

www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analysts Of ce 5

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BUDGET OVERVIEW

Te primary goal o Cali ornias criminal justice system is to provide public sa ety by

deterring and preventing crime, punishingindividuals who commit crime, and reintegratingcriminals back into the community. Te statesmajor criminal justice programs include the courtsystem, the CDCR, and the Department o Justice.Te Governors budget proposes total expenditureso $14.1 billion or judicial and criminal justiceprograms. Below, we describe recent trends instate spending on criminal justice and provide anoverview o the major changes in the Governorsproposed budget or criminal justice programs in2014-15.

State Expenditure Trends

Over the past decade, total state spending oncriminal justice programs has varied. In particular,criminal justice spending declined in recent yearsbut increased in 2013-14 and is proposed to urtherincrease in 2014-15 under the Governors budget.

As shown in Figure 1, statespending on criminal justicepeaked in 2007-08 at about$15 billion. In comparison,state spending oncriminal justice was about$12 million in 2012-13,reecting a continueddecline since 2010-11. Aswe discuss below, much o

this decline was related toreduced expenditures on thestates judicial branch andcorrectional system.

Decline in Corrections Spending. Te primaryreason or the decline in spending on corrections

over this time period is the impact o variouspolicy changes enacted to reduce the states prisonpopulation. Te state took these actions to helpreduce state spending and comply with a ederalcourt order to reduce prison overcrowding, as wellas to achieve improved criminal justice outcomes.Some o the actions taken include (1) providingcounties a scal incentive to reduce the number oelony probationers that ail on probation and aresent to state prison, (2) increasing the number ocredits inmates can earn to accelerate their releasedate rom prison, (3) making certain parolees who violate a term o their parole ineligible or returnto prison, and (4) increasing the dollar thresholdor certain property crimes to be considered aelony, thus making ewer offenders eligible orprison. Te most signicant o these changes,however, happened with the passage o the 2011

(In Billions)

Figure 1

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

$16Other Funds

General Fund

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

State Criminal Justice Expenditures


6/60

2014 15 BUDGET


realignment which, among other changes, shifed various criminal justice responsibilities rom thestate to counties. In particular, the 2011 realignmentmade elons generally ineligible or state prisonunless they had a current or prior conviction or a

serious, violent, or sex-related offense. By the endo 2012-13, realignment had reduced the prisonpopulation by tens o thousands o inmates.

Decline in Judicial Branch Spending. Te statesrecent scal crisis also resulted in signicant GeneralFund reductions to the judicial branch, particularlythe trial courts. Te judicial branch has receiveda series o one-time and ongoing General Fundreductions since 2008-09. By 2012-13, the branch hadreceived ongoing General Fund reductions totaling$778 million. O thisamount, $724 million inreductions were allocatedto the trial courts.However, various one-timeand ongoing solutionswere used to offset most othe reductions to the trialcourts. As we discuss later

in this report, despite theseoffsets, the trial courts hadto take various actions toabsorb some reductions,which impacted courtservices differently acrosscourts.

Governors BudgetProposal

Figure 2 summarizesexpenditures rom all undsources or criminal justiceprograms in 2012-13 andas revised and proposed bythe Governor or 2013-14and 2014-15. As shown

in the gure, total spending on criminal justiceprograms is proposed to increase rom an estimated$13.6 billion in the current year to $14.1 billion in thebudget year. Tis is an increase o 4 percent. GeneralFund spending is proposed to increase 3.2 percent

over current-year expenditure levels. Major Budget Proposals. Most o the proposed

increase in spending is or CDCR and the judicialbranch. For example, increased unding o$261 million is provided to CDCR to help meetthe population cap ordered by the ederal courts.Te Governors budget also provides increasedunding to CDCR or additional costs related toworkers compensation, and employee salary andtraining. In addition, the proposed budget includes

Figure 2

Judicial and Criminal Justice Budget Summary(Dollars in Millions)

Actual2012-13

Estimated2013-14

Proposed2014-15

Change From 2013-14

Actual Percent

CDCR $8,742 $9,441 $9,833 $391 4.1%General Funda 8,551 9,281 9,513 232 2.5Special and other funds 191 160 320 160 99.7Judicial Branch $2,825 $3,117 $3,274 $157 5.0%General Fund 748 1,220 1,325 105 8.6Special and other funds 2,077 1,897 1,949 52 2.7Department of Justice $660 $769 $771 $2 0.2%General Fund 154 178 194 17 9.3Special and other funds 507 591 577 -15 -2.5BSCC $95 $129 $134 $5 3.8%General Fund 40 44 45 1 1.2Special and other funds 55 85 89 4 5.2Other Departmentsb $138 $125 $114 -$12 -9.3%General Fund 82 64 58 -6 -9.8Special and other funds 56 61 56 -5 -8.9

Totals, AllDepartments

$12,460 $13,582 $14,125 $543 4.0%

General Fund 9,574 10,787 11,135 348 3.2Special and other funds 2,886 2,795 2,990 196 7.0a Does not include revenues to General Fund to offset corrections spending from the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance

Program.b Includes Ofce of the Inspector General, Commission on Judicial Performance, Victims Compensation and Government Claims

Board, Commission on Peace Ofcer Standards and Training, State Public Defender, and debt service on general obligationbonds.CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and BSCC = Board of State and Community Corrections.

Detail may not total due to rounding.


7/60

2014 15 BUDGET


a $105 million General Fund augmentation or the judicial branch$100 million to support trial courtoperations and $5 million to support state level courtand Judicial Council operations.

Realignment Funding. As mentioned above,

the 2011 realignment shifed several criminal justiceprograms rom state to county responsibility. Alongwith the shif o these programs, state law shifed ashare o the state sales tax, as well as Vehicle LicenseFee revenue, to local governments. Te passage oProposition 30 by voters in November 2012, amongother changes, permanently guaranteed theserevenues to local governments. Te Governorsbudget includes an estimate o revenues projectedto go to local governments over the next ew years.Tese estimates are generally in line with prior

Figure 3

Estimated Revenues to Counties for2011 Realignment of Criminal Justice Programs(In Millions)

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Community corrections $930 $1,063 $1,094Trial court security 508 517 538Law enforcement grants 490 490 497Juvenile justice grants 110 119 140District attorneys and public defenders 20 21 27 Totals $2,058 $2,210 $2,296

estimates. As shown in Figure 3, total undingor the criminal justice programs realigned isexpected to increase rom $2.1 billion in 2012-13 to$2.3 billion in 2014-15.

In addition to the unds provided to counties

directly through the 2011 realignment legislation,the state has also authorized lease-revenue bondsto und the construction and modernization ocounty jails ollowing the realignment. Specically,Chapter 42, Statutes o 2012 (SB 1022, Committee onBudget and Fiscal Review), authorized $500 millionto help counties construct and modi y jails toaccommodate longer-term inmates who have beenshifed to county responsibility. Te Governorsbudget or 2014-15 proposes that an additional$500 million in lease-revenue bonds be authorized tosupport the construction o county acilities.

JUDICIAL BRANCH

OverviewTe judicial branch is responsible or the

interpretation o law, the protection o an individuals

rights, the orderly settlement o all legal disputes, andthe adjudication o accusations o legal violations.Te branch consists o statewide courts (the SupremeCourt and Courts o Appeal), trial courts in each othe states 58 counties, and statewide entities o thebranch (the Judicial Council, Judicial Branch FacilityProgram, and the HabeasCorpus Resource Center).Te branch receivesrevenues rom severalunding sources includingthe state General Fund,civil ling ees, criminalpenalties and nes, countymaintenance-o -effortpayments, and ederalgrants.

Figure 4 (see next page) shows total undingor the judicial branch rom 2000-01 through2014-15. As shown in the gure, unding or thebranch peaked in 2010-11 at roughly $4 billion andthen subsequently declined through 2012-13. Tisdecline is primarily due to signicant reductionsin the level o General Fund support providedto the branch during this time period. We note,however, that total unding or the judicial branch


8/60

2014 15 BUDGET


increased in 2013-14 and is proposed to increase in2014-15 under the Governors budget. Specically,the 2013-14 Budget Actincluded a $63 millionGeneral Fund augmentation or the judicialbranch and the Governors budget or 2014-15

proposes an additional $105 million General Fundaugmentation. Under the Governors budget, theGeneral Fund share o the total judicial branchbudget will be 33 percent in 2014-15.

As shown in Figure 5, the Governors budgetproposes $3.3 billion rom all state unds tosupport the judicial branch in 2014-15, an increaseo $157 million, or 5 percent, above the revisedamount or 2013-14. (Tese totals do not includeexpenditures rom local revenues or trial courtreserves.) O the total budget proposed or the judicial branch in 2014-15, roughly $1.3 billion isrom the General Fund. Tis is a net increase oabout $105 million, or 8.6 percent, rom the 2013-14level.

$100 Million GeneralFund Augmentation forTrial Court Operations

Background

Prior-Year Budget Reductions and Offsets. Te judicial branch received a series o one-timeand ongoing General Fund reductions rom2008-09 through 2012-13. By 2012-13, the branchhad received ongoing General Fund reductionstotaling $778 million. O this amount, $724 millionin ongoing General Fund reductions were allocatedto the trial courts. However, the 2013-14 budgetprovided a $60 million General Fund augmentation

to the trial courts to help offset these reductions.Specically, the augmentation reduced the totalongoing General Fund reductions to the trial courtsto $664 million in 2013-14.

Additionally, since 2008-09, the Legislatureand Judicial Council (the policymaking andgoverning body o the judicial branch) used various

(In Billions)

a 2011 realignment shifted responsibility for funding most cour t security costs from the state General Fund to counties. Figure displays estimated countyspending on court security for comparison purposes.

b General Fund amounts include use of redevelopment funds for trial courts on a one-time basis$1.3 billion in 2009-10 and $350 million in 2010-11.

1

2

3

4

$5

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 b 10-11 b 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15(Estimated) (Proposed)

Other FundsRealigned Court Security a

General Fund

Figure 4

Total Judicial Branch Funding


9/60

2014 15 BUDGET


one-time and ongoing solutions to offset most othe reductions to the trial courts. Such solutionsincluded using revenues rom increased nesand ees, trans ers rom judicial branch specialunds, and trial court reserves. (Reserves are the

accumulation o unspent unds rom prior yearsthat are carried over and kept by each trial court.)

Despite most o the reductions being offset,the trial courts still had to absorb $215 million inGeneral Fund reductions in 2013-14. (We wouldnote that some courts may have used one-timeresources to absorb their share o this reductionin 2013-14. Such courts will have to absorb thesereductions again in 2014-15. In contrast, othercourts may have absorbed more than their shareo the reduction in 2013-14 in order to planahead or additional ongoing reductions theollowing year.) rial courts have taken variousactions to accommodate these reductions. Teseactions include leaving staff vacancies unlled,renegotiating contracts with employees and vendors, delaying purchases, closing courtroomsor courthouses, reducing clerk office hours, andreducing sel -help and amily law services. While

the impacts o these actions vary across courts anddepend on the specic operational choices made byeach court, some o these actions have resulted inreduced access to court services, longer wait times

or court services and hearings, and courts beingunable to complete workload in a timely manner.

In order to help minimize the extent to whichthese operational actions affected court users, anumber o courts also made various changes to

their operations. Tese changes include installingdropboxes or individuals to submit courtpaperwork when clerks offices are closed andpurchasing kiosks where individuals can pay ortraffic tickets. In addition, some courts have mademultiyear investments to operate more efficiently.For example, some courts have shifed to electronicling o documents in certain case types anddeveloped online systems where individuals canautomatically schedule hearings or select casetypes.

New Funding Allocation Methodology. InApril 2013, the Judicial Council approved a newmethod or allocating unds appropriated ortrial court operations in the annual state budgetto individual trial courts. Tis new methodology,also known as the Workload Allocation FundingMethodology (WAFM), is intended to distributeunding among the trial courts based on workload.

(Previously, such unding was allocated on apro rata basis, generally based on the historicshare o statewide allocations received by eachtrial court.) Specically, the new ormula starts

Figure 5

Judicial Branch Budget SummaryAll State Funds(Dollars in Millions)

2012-13

Actual

2013-14

Estimated

2014-15

Proposed

Change From 2013-14

Amount PercentState Trial Courts $2,237 $2,443 $2,531 $88 3.6%Supreme Court 43 44 45 1 1.5Courts of Appeal 202 208 211 3 1.6Judicial Council 135 142 141 -1 -0.4Judicial Branch Facility Program 195 267 332 65 24.3Habeas Corpus Resource Center 13 14 14 1.4 Totals $2,825 $3,117 $3,274 $157 5.0%


10/60

2014 15 BUDGET


with a Resource Assessment Study (RAS), whichestimates the number o personnel needed or eachcourt primarily based on the number o lings or various case types and the amount o time it takesstaff to process each ling. Each courts estimated

staffing need is then converted to a cost estimateor personnel and combined with various othercost actors not captured in the RAS model (suchas workload costs and other actors consideredunique to a specic trial court) to determine thetotal estimated workload-driven costs or each trialcourt. Te total cost or each court is then usedto determine that courts percentage o total trialcourt operations costs. Tese percentages are thenapplied to the unding appropriated to the trialcourts in the state budget to determine how muchunding each individual trial court will receive thatyear.

Beginning in 2013-14, the judicial branchimplemented a ve-year plan to phase in theimplementation o its new allocation methodology.Under the plan, a greater percentage o undsappropriated or trial court operations will beallocated using WAFM each year with a lesser

amount being allocated under the old methodology.Upon ull implementation, 50 percent o trial courtoperations unding will be allocated using WAFM,and 50 percent will be allocated using the old prorata percentages. However, the branch intends toallocate any augmentations provided to trial courtoperations (such as the $60 million General Fundaugmentation provided in the 2013-14 budget)based on the WAFM model, unless the undingis provided or a specied purpose (such as orcourt interpreters or example). o the extent suchadditional unding is provided, the branch willshif an equivalent amount o unding rom theamount allocated based on the old methodology tothe amount allocated based on WAFM (re erred toas the dollar- or-dollar match), thereby reducingthe amount allocated using the old method and

increasing the amount allocated by WAFM.Tere ore, under the branchs plan, additionalunding will result in a greater share o trial courtunding allocated using WAFM. Te judicialbranch reports that it would take a cumulative

$700 million augmentation or all trial courtoperations unding to be allocated under WAFM.

Governors Proposal

Te Governors budget or 2014-15 proposesan ongoing General Fund augmentation o$100 million to support trial court operations. (Tebudget also provides a $5 million augmentationto support state level courts and Judicial Counciloperations.) Te budget requires that the additionalunding be allocated based on WAFM. However,the trial courts would have exibility in spendingthese unds.

Augmentation Reduces Ongoing Reductions.As discussed previously, the total ongoing GeneralFund reductions to the trial courts totaled$664 million 2013-14. Te Governors augmentationwould reduce these ongoing reductions to$564 million or 2014-15. As shown in Figure 6,

the budget assumes that $249 million in resourceswill be available to help offset a portion o thisreduction. Tis leaves $315 million in reductionsthat will have to be absorbed by trial courts in2014-15, a net increase o $100 million over theamount already assumed to be absorbed by the trialcourts in 2013-14. Tis net increase in reductionsresults rom the lack o trial court reserves availableto offset ongoing reductions.

Challenges to AddressingOngoing Budget Reductions

Increased Employee Benet Costs. Te trialcourts indicate that they will ace increasedcost pressures in 2014-15 related to growingretirement and benet costs. Currently, individualtrial courts (primarily presiding judges and/


11/60

2014 15 BUDGET


or court executive officers) conduct separateand independent negotiations with local labororganizations representing most trial courtemployees. Tis differs rom the collectivebargaining process or most state employees, where

the Cali ornia Department o Human Resourcesoversees statewide labor negotiations on behalo the Governor. In addition, unlike memorandao understanding (MOU) negotiated with stateemployees, agreements negotiated with trial courtemployees are not subject to ratication by theLegislature and cost increases are not automaticallyincluded in the budget. Moreover, some trialcourt employees continue to participate in countyretirement and health benet programs. As aresult, both the state and individual trial courtslack control over the level o these benets setby the counties and provided to these trial courtemployees, and more importantly, the costs thatmust be paid to provide those benets.

In recent years, concerns have been raisedregarding whether trial courts have been effectivelycontaining costs in their negotiations with trialcourt employees. For example, the GovernorsBudget Summary raises the concern that trial

court employees in a number o courts are not(1) making retirement contributions or (2) makingcontributions in a manner similar to executivebranch employees, who are generally required tocontribute 8 percent to 10 percent o their salarytowards these costs. In view o such concerns, theadministration has not proposed additional undingspecically or increased trial court retirement andbenet costs since 2010-11. According to the judicialbranch, these un unded cost increases will reachan estimated $64.1 million by the end o 2013-14.Without additional resources to support these costs,trial courts will use more o their operational undsto meet these obligations, which could result inreduced levels o service to the public.

Figure 6

Trial Courts Budget Reductions Through 2014-15(In Millions)

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-132013-14

(Estimated)2014-15

(Budgeted)

General Fund ReductionOne-time reduction -$92 -$100 -$30 -$418 Ongoing reductions (cumulative) -261 -286 -$606 -724 -$664 -$564 Total Reductions -$92 -$361 -$316 -$606 -$1142 -$664 -$564Solutions to Address ReductionConstruction fund transfers $25 $98 $213 $299 $55 $55Other special fund transfers 110 62 89 102 52 52Trial court reserves 385 200 Increased nes and fees 18 66 71 121 121 121Statewide programmatic changes 18 14 19 21 21 21 Total Solutions $171 $240 $392 $928 $449 $249

Reductions Allocated to the TrialCourtsa

-$92 -$190 -$76 -$214 -$214 -$215 -$315

a Addressed using various actions taken by individual trial courts, such as the implementation of furlough days and reduced clerk hours, as well as use of reserves (separate fromthose mandated by budget language or Judicial Council).


12/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Few Statutory Changes to Increase Efficiency Adopted to Date. In 2012-13, the Legislaturerequested that the judicial branch submit a reporton potential operational efficiencies, includingthose requiring statutory amendments. Te

Legislatures intent was to identi y efficiencies that,i adopted, would help the trial courts addresstheir ongoing budget reductions. In May 2012,the judicial branch submitted to the Legislaturea list o 17 measures that would result in greateroperational efficiencies or additional courtrevenues. (Our publication, Te 2013-14 Budget:Governors Criminal Justice Proposals, describesin detail many o these measures.) However,only our administrative efficiencies and user eeincreases have subsequently been implemented todate. In order to effectively absorb ongoing budgetreductions, additional changes to make the courtsoperate more efficiently will likely need to beadopted.

Less Resources Available to Offset Reductions. Over the last ve years, the state has trans erredunds rom various judicial branch special unds(such as those related to court construction) to

help offset budget reductions to the trial courts.However, the availability o resources rom theseunds to offset reductions in the budget year will belimited. For example, most o the trans ers to thetrial courts have come rom three special unds: theState Court Facilities Construction Fund (SCFCF),the Immediate and Critical Needs Account(ICNA), and the State rial Court Improvementand Modernization Fund (IMF). However, therepeated trans er o dollars rom these three undshas greatly reduced their und balances. As a result,additional trans ers would likely delay plannedprojects or reduce certain services typicallysupported by the und (such as judicial educationprograms and sel -help centers). Additionally, aswe discuss in the next section, the und balancesor the SCFCF and ICNA have been identied as

potential sources or temporary cash ow loans,which places urther constraints on the availabilityo these unds to offset reductions.

Similarly, trial courts used their reservesto minimize the impact o ongoing unding

reductions upon court users. However, the repeateduse o reserve unds over the past ve years andthe ull implementation o the new trial courtreserves policy mean minimal reserve unds willbe available to help offset budget reductions in2014-15. (We discuss the reserves policy in moredetail later in this report.)

Limited Ability to Increase Revenues to OffsetReductions. Te Legislature has approved increasesin criminal and civil nes and ees in recent yearsto und court acility construction projects andto offset reductions to trial court unding. As canbe seen in Figure 7, revenues rom the recent eeincreases are projected to decline in 2013-14 butwill generally meet the original revenue estimateso the courts. Moreover, revenues or most o theindividual ee increases are lower than what wasprojected. Tis could be an indication that, atleast or some nes and ees, additional increases

may not result in as much revenue as previouslyachieved. Tis could also be a signal o reducedaccess to justice as ewer people are accessing thecivil court process because o the increased costs.

Augmentation May Only MinimizeFurther Service Reductions

Access to Court Services May Not SubstantiallyIncrease. While the Governors budget provides anadditional $100 million in ongoing General Fundsupport or trial court operations, these unds maynot result in a substantial restoration o access tocourt services. First, the Governors budget doesnot include a list o priorities or requirements orthe use o these additional unds, such as requiringthat they be used to increase public access tocourt services. We note that the 2013-14 budget


13/60


14/60

2014 15 BUDGET


inequities among the trial courts, as itwas based on the historic share o undingreceived by courts rather than workloadaced by the court. Te WAFM correctsthese inequities by redistributing unds

among the courts based on workload. Tus,courts that historically have had moreunding relative to their workload willbenet very little rom the augmentationproposed by the Governor. In contrast,courts with less unding relative to theirworkload will benet comparatively morerom the augmentation.

LAO Recommendations

Dene Legislative Funding Priorities orProposed Augmentation. Given the cost increasesin employee benets and the limited availability oresources to help trial courts absorb an increasingamount o ongoing reductions in 2014-15, as wellas legislative concerns regarding the likely negativeimpacts o such challenges on court users, wend that the Governors proposed $100 millionaugmentation merits consideration. However, i theLegislature determines that (1) urther minimizingthe amount o additional impacts on court usersis a statewide priority and (2) efficiencies or otheroptions do not allow the courts to provide the levelo service it desires, the Legislature could chose toprovide additional General Fund support on eithera one-time or an ongoing basis.

Regardless o the amount o additionalunding provided to the trial courts in 2014-15,

we recommend that the Legislature establishpriorities or how the increased unding shouldbe spent or example, increasing access to courtservices. We also recommend that the Legislaturerequire the courts to report on the expected use osuch unds prior to allocation and on the actual useo the unds near the end o the scal year. Suchin ormation would allow the Legislature to conduct

oversight to ensure that the additional undsprovided are used to meet legislative priorities.

Consider Implementing More Efficiencies.We recommend that the Legislature considerurther actions to help the trial courts operate

more efficiently. For example, the Legislature couldreevaluate the proposed statutory changes thatwere not enacted last year. Tese changes wouldallow the courts to do more with existing dollars,thereby minimizing the impact o their budgetreductions. Additionally, in conversations withcourts and other judicial branch stakeholders, anumber o other such statutory changes exist thatwould increase efficiency. For example, courts havein ormed us that under current law, they may onlydiscard death penalty les and exhibits upon theexecution o the de endant. Since most individualson death row are not executed but die due tonatural causes, courts cannot destroy their caserecords and bear the costs o storing these les andexhibits indenitely. Te Legislature could modi ycurrent law to allow death penalty les and exhibitsto be discarded on the death o the de endant,regardless o how the de endant died, which would

reduce storage costs. Such changes could helpprovide the judicial branch with additional ongoingsavings or revenues that could help urther offsetongoing reductions. I the Legislature is interestedin implementing a broader range o efficienciesbeyond those already proposed, it could considerconvening a task orce to identi y and recommendefficiencies, as we discuss in greater detail in thenearby box.

Establish Comprehensive rial Court Assessment Program. Currently, there isinsufficient in ormation to assess whether trialcourts are using the unding provided in the annualbudget effectively. Tis makes it difficult or theLegislature to ensure that (1) certain levels o accessto courts services are provided, (2) trial courtsuse existing and increased unding in an effective


15/60

2014 15 BUDGET


manner, and (3) unding is allocated and usedconsistent with legislative priorities. For example, itis unclear exactly how each trial court has absorbedpast reductions and how such actions haveimpacted court outcomes. Tus, we recommend

that the Legislature take steps towards establishinga comprehensive per ormance assessment programor the trial courts. (We initially made such arecommendation in our 2011 report, Completingthe Goals of rial Court Realignment .) Whilethe judicial branch collects some statewidein ormation related to certain measures o trialcourt per ormance (such as the time it takes acourt to process its caseload), it currently lacks acomprehensive set o measurements or which datais collected consistently on a statewide basis.

In developing a comprehensive per ormanceassessment program, we rst recommend thatthe Legislature speci y in statute the specicper ormance measurements it believes are mostimportant and require the Judicial Council tocollect data on each measurement rom individualtrial courts on an annual basis. In determiningthe specic per ormance measurements, we

believe that it will rst be important or theLegislature to solicit input rom the JudicialCouncil. Tus, we recommend the Judicial Councilreport to the Legislature by a specied date onits recommendations regarding appropriate

measurements. In preparing this report, theJudicial Council should examine the measurementscurrently used by ederal courts and other statecourts.

Afer the Legislature adopts specicper ormance measurements or the trial courtsin statute, and once data on these measurementshave been reported by the Judicial Council or atleast two years, we recommend that the Legislatureestablish a system or holding individual courtsaccountable or their per ormance relative tothose standards. Such an accountability systemwould involve the establishment o (1) a specicbenchmark that the courts would be expectedto meet or each measurement and (2) steps thatwould be taken should the court ail to meet thebenchmark over time (such as by requiring acourt that ails to meet a benchmark to adopt thepractices o those courts that were success ul in

meeting the same per ormance benchmark).

Legislature Could Convene a Task Force to Recommend Efficiencies

Te Legislature could consider convening an independent task orceconsisting o a broadrange o judicial branch stakeholdersto comprehensively evaluate court processes and identi yoperational efficiencies that would reduce costs to the courts, improve delivery o court services, andincrease access to court services. Although similar task orces have been convened in the past, thesegroups have only provided the Legislature with recommendations or which there is unanimousconsensus. Consequently, the recommendations o these task orces have been limited in scope.

o maximize the menu o efficiencies available or legislative consideration, the Legislaturecould direct the task orce to identi y all efficiencies proposed by stakeholders, along with anassessment o each efficiencys impact (scal or otherwise). Dissenting members would thenbe allowed to provide their concerns and rationale or opposition. Tis would then enable theLegislature to consider a broad range o efficiencies as well as the scal and policy implications oeach option.


16/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Trial Court Reserves Policy

Background

Use o rial Court Reserves. Chapter 850,Statutes o 1997 (AB 233, Escutia and Pringle),allowed the Judicial Council to authorize trialcourts to establish reserves to hold any unspentunds rom prior years. Chapter 850 did notplace restrictions on the amount o reserves eachcourt could maintain or how they could be used.Tese reserves consist o unding designated bythe court as either restricted or unrestricted.Restricted reserves include (1) unds set asideto ulll contractual obligations or statutory

requirements and (2) unds usable only or specicpurposes. Examples o restricted reserves includesunds set aside to cover short-term acility leasecosts, service contracts, license agreements, andchildrens waiting room costs. Unrestricted undsare generally used to avoid cash short alls causedby normal revenue or expenditure uctuations,to make one-time investments in technology orequipment, and to cover unanticipated costs.

New Reserves Policy Enacted in 2012-13. Aspart o the 2012-13 budget package, the Legislatureapproved legislation to change the above reservepolicy that allows trial courts to retain unlimitedreserves. Specically, beginning in 2014-15, eachtrial court will only be allowed to retain reserveso up to 1 percent o its prior-year operatingbudget. Additionally, legislation was approved toestablish a statewide trial court reserve, managedby the Judicial Council, beginning in 2012-13.

Tis statewide reserve consists o a withholding o2 percent o the total unds appropriated or trialcourt operations in a given yearapproximately$37.2 million in 2014-15. rial courts can petitionthe Judicial Council or an allocation romthis statewide reserve to address un oreseenemergencies, unanticipated expenses or existing

programs, or unavoidable unding short alls. Anyunexpended unds in the statewide reserve wouldbe distributed to the trial courts on a proratedbasis at the end o each scal year.

New Reserves Policy Amended in 2013-14.

As part o the 2013-14 budget package, theLegislature approved legislation modi ying thereserves policy to address some concerns thathad been raised about the policy. For example,amendments were approved to authorize intra-branch loans to trial courts rom three judicialbranch special undsSCFCF, ICNA, and theJudicial Branch Workers Compensation Fundtotaling up to $150 million or cash managementpurposes. Te judicial branch is required toreport each year on the amount o such loansmade and courts are required to repay each loanwithin two years. Moreover, in order to increasethe amount o reserves available or discretionaryuse, changes were also made to exempt reservesthat must be used or specic statutory purposes(such as unds set aside to establish and maintaina childrens waiting room) rom the calculation oa trial courts 1 percent limitwhich totaled about

$38 mill ion at the end o 2012-13 and representedabout 33 percent o restricted reserve unds. Inaddition to exempting any such reserves romthe calculation o the 1 percent limit, the judicialbranch estimates that trial courts will be able toretain up to $24.1 million at the start o 2014-15.As shown in Figure 8, this is a substantial decreaserom the $324 million in reserves held at the endo 2012-13.

Governors Proposal

Te Governors budget maintains the reservespolicy initial ly enacted as part o the 2012-13budget package and amended in 2013-14. Teadministration states that the new reserves policyis more consistent with a state- unded judicialsystem as it enables the Judicial Council to set


17/60

2014 15 BUDGET


statewide priorities or the use o such unds andensure that their use benets the entire trial courtsystem.

Reserves Policy Continues to

Present Unintended ChallengesCash Flow Concerns Persist Despite Special

Fund Loans. Courts currently use their reservesto avoid cash short alls when their monthlyoperating expenses exceed their monthlyallocation rom the state. Tis ensures that courtspay all o their bills on time and that certain courtprograms can continue to operate even when thereare delays in ederal or other reimbursements.Accordingly, reducing the reserve courts areallowed to retain can create cash ow difficultiesor courts. Moreover, the potential or cashshort alls is exacerbated by the requirement thatthe judicial branch maintain a statewide reserveo 2 percent, as this means that each courts totalallocation is 2 percent smaller than it wouldotherwise be. Te recentamendments to thereserves policy to permit

temporary loans o upto $150 million romthe SCFCF, ICNA, andthe Judicial BranchWorkers CompensationFund should addressmost o the cash-owissues in the short run.However, cash-owloans rom these threeunds could orce the

judicial branch to delaypayments or plannedprojects. o prevent this,the Legislature couldexpand the numbero special unds that

courts could borrow rom or cash-ow purposes.For example, the Legislature could allow loans tobe made rom the IMF and the Court Facilitiesrust Fund as well.

We note, however, that even with expanded

authority to borrow rom additional judicialbranch special unds, it is likely that undswill be unavailable or loans in the long runwithout delaying projects or reducing supportor programs currently unded by these specialunds. For example, both the SCFCF and ICNAare currently used to make debt-service paymentsor completed courthouse construction projects.Over time, more projects will be completedrequiring greater expenditures rom both o theseunds, which would urther reduce the availabilityo such unds or cash short all loans. Tus, ipriority was placed on ensuring $150 million inloans were available in these unds or cash-owpurposes, the judicial branch would potentiallyneed to delay certain projects.

(In Millions)

a Does not include reserves that must be used for specific statutory purposes, which were exemptedfrom the calculation of a trial cour ts 1 percent limit by the Legislature in 2013-14.

100

200

300

400

500

600

$700

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 a(Estimated)

Figure 8

Total Trial Court Reserves Since 2000-01


18/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Courts May Need to Suspend Some ExistingContracts. While the amended reserves policyexempts unds set aside or specic statutorypurposes, it does not take into account reserveunding that courts set aside to ulll contractual

obligations. Tis can create some challenges or thecourts. First, some courts have ongoing contractualobligations. For example, some courts may utilizea third-party vendor to process their employeepayroll, such as the county personnel agency or aprivate company. Tese third-party vendors ofenrequire the courts to maintain a certain amounto unding in reserve prior to issuing payrollanamount generally greater than the 1 percent capthat they are allowed to keep in reserve underthe new reserves policy. Without sufficient undsin reserve to meet such obligations, courts mayhave difficulty making employee payroll or mayno longer be able to use their third-party vendor.Second, some courts have entered into one-timeor multiyear contracts or agreements to und various projects, such as replacing aging casemanagement systems. In such circumstances,courts ofen set aside the entire cost o the project

but only make incremental payments once vendorsmeet per ormance benchmarks. For example, onetrial court has entered into a $2.4 million contractto replace its case management system with$1.1 million due in 2013-14 and $1.3 million duein 2014-15. However, the court will only be able toretain an estimated $305,000 in reserves to complywith the 1 percent capan amount signicantlyless than the $1.3 million due in 2014-15.

Since the above unds are not exemptedrom the calculation o the 1 percent limit, somecourts may be orced to break existing contracts,particularly i an alternative unding source is notidentied by the judicial branch. o the extentthat courts are able to ulll these expenditureswithin the 1 percent cap, they will likely have ewerunrestricted unds available or other purposes.

Tis could potentially result in these courtsrequiring more loans to cover cash short alls, aswell as the delayed implementation o additionalprojects or elimination o programs or servicesthat would otherwise be supported through

discretionary unds. Limits Ability or Courts to Plan or Future

Projects. Historically, trial courts built up theirreserves to und projects or programs to helpthem operate more efficiently, support additionalworkload, or provide the public with greater accessto court services (such as document management,collections, electronic ling, and electronic accesstechnologies). o the extent that the unds currentlysupporting such projects or programs exceed the1 percent reserves cap, they could be halted orscaled back. Additionally, because the statewidereserve can only be used to address un oreseenemergencies, unanticipated expenses or existingprograms, or unavoidable unding short alls,these unds are not available to support projectshistorically unded rom reserves. Tus, the newreserves policy limits the ability o courts to saveand plan over time or such investments.

Limits Incentive and Ability o Individualrial Courts to Implement Efficiencies. Underthe amended reserves policy, individual trialcourts have less incentive to operate efficiently. Tehistorical ability or courts to set aside unlimitedunds encouraged them to operate more efficientlybecause any savings created could then be used bythe court to und uture programs or projects thatbeneted it directly. Under the new reserves policy,however, reserve unds beyond the 1 percent capcreated by efficiencies implemented by individualtrial courts cannot be retained by the court.Accordingly, trial courts have less incentive toimplement such efficiencies as they will be unableto benet directly rom the savings created. Inaddition, the reserves policy limits the ability otrial courts to create such efficiencies.


19/60


20/60


21/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Te average daily parole population is projectedto be about 37,000 parolees in the budget year,a decline o about 9,000 parolees (20 percent)rom the estimated current-year level. Tisdecline is largely a result o the 2011 realignment,

which shifed rom the state to the counties theresponsibility or supervising certain offendersollowing their release rom prison. Te CDCRsprojections also show that the parole populationis expected to continue to declinealthoughat a slower paceover the next ew years. ByJune 30, 2019, the department estimates that theparole population will be 33,000.

Governors Proposal

As part o the Governors January budgetproposal each year, the administration requestsmodications to CDCRs budget based on projectedchanges in the prison and parole populations inthe current and budget years. Te administrationthen adjusts these requests each spring as part othe May Revision based on updated projectionso these populations.Te adjustments are

made both on theoverall population ooffenders and varioussubpopulations (suchas mentally ill inmatesand sex offenders onparole). As can beseen in Figure 10, theadministration proposesa net increase o$2.9 million in the currentyear and a net reductiono $23.4 million in thebudget year.

Te current-yearnet increase in costs isprimarily due to costs

rom the higher-than-expected 2013-14 parolepopulation, as well as additional unanticipatedcosts or the recently activated Cali ornia HealthCare Facility (CHCF) in Stockton. Tese costsare partially offset by savings related to in-state

contract beds due to delays in moving inmates intosuch beds, as well as reduced costs associated withthe deactivation o temporary mental health crisisbeds at the Cali ornia Mens Colony in San LuisObispo. (Te increased cost or the administrationsproposed expansion o in-state contracts in thecurrent year is accounted or elsewhere in theGovernors budget or CDCR.)

Te budget-year net reduction in costs islargely related to the lower-than-expected 2014-15parole population and reduced costs associatedwith deactivating temporary mental health crisisbeds at the Cali ornia Institution or Men in Chinoand Cali ornia State Prison, Sacramento. Tesereductions are partially offset by increased costs toreimburse counties or various services providedto CDCR (such as housing CDCR inmates when

Figure 10

Governors Population-Related Proposals(Dollars in Millions)

2013-14 2014-15

Prison Population Assumptions2013-14 Budget Act 128,885 128,885Governors 2014-15 budget 135,006 137,788 Prison Population Adjustments 6,121 8,903Parole Population Assumptions

2013-14 Budget Act 42,498 42,498Governors 2014-15 budget 45,944 36,660

Parole Population Adjustments 3,446 -5,838Budget AdjustmentsInmate-related adjustments $5.0 $2.2Contract bed adjustments -7.7 Jail contract reimbursements 13.2Health care facility activations -0.2 -4.9Parolee-related adjustments 5.9 -28.7Other adjustments -0.1 -5.1 Proposed Budget Adjustments $2.9 -$23.4


22/60

2014 15 BUDGET


they must appear in court), as well as costs rom anincrease in certain populations o inmates needingmental health care.

Adjustments Do Not Reect CHCF

Delay and Rely Heavily on Registry In general, the administrations projections o

the prison and parole population are reasonablebased on recent trends, and the associated budgetadjustments are generally reasonable. We nd,however, that potential savings could be realizedby adjusting or the delayed activation o CHCF,as well as rom reducing reliance on registry ormental health position vacancies.

Delayed Activation o CHCF. Te departmentactivated CHCF in July 2013 and begantrans erring inmates to the prison in phasesthroughout the all o 2013. Te departmentsoriginal activation schedule called or CHCF tohave all o its 1,722 beds lled by December 31,2013. However, the activation o certain housingunits were delayed. For example, CDCR delayedthe activation o seven 30-bed housing units ormentally ill inmates operated by the Department

o State Hospitals (DSH). Te CDCR activated twoo these units several months behind schedule,and the other ve units were inactive at the timeo this analysis. It is unclear when the units willbe activated. According to CDCR, the delays haveresulted rom DSHs inability to hire sufficientmental health pro essionals to staff the housingunits. Moreover, we note that the state recentlysuspended the trans er o inmates to CHCFdue to activation problems (such as inadequatemedical supplies). Te delayed activation o thehousing units should reduce workload or CDCRin 2013-14 and 2014-15. Tis is because thedepartment does not need to allocate budgetedcorrectional officer time to provide securityor empty housing units. In addition, there areewer inmates to escort throughout the prison

(such as to medical appointments). However, theadministrations request or additional resourcesor the operation o CHCF does not reect anysavings to CDCR rom such workload reductions.

Use o Registry or Mental Health Services.

Mental health staffing levels are determined usinga ratio staffing model, which is based on patientpopulation, clinical staff recommendations,direction rom the Coleman court specialmaster, and other actors. Adjustments are madetwice annually based on changes in the patientpopulation. We note, however, that mentalhealth staff positions have consistently been verydifficult to ll. Currently, the department has a vacancy rate o 23 percent, excluding registry,blanket, and long-term sick leave. According toCDCR, none o the additional 75 mental healthpositions authorized by the Legislature or2013-14 (including psychiatrists , psychologists,and administrative support staff) have been lled.In 2013-14, CDCR estimates that it will realize$36 million in salary savings rom those vacanciesand is projected to spend $25 million on registrystaff (temporary staff paid an hourly wage) to

cover the vacant positions.Te CDCR utilizes registry staff because o

the difficulties in lling mental health positionsand the need to maintain a certain basic levelo services. As such, some level o registry isexpected and unavoidable. However, registry maybe more expensive than hiring civil service staff.Highly trained classications such as psychiatristsand psychologists are particularly more expensiveto hire as registry staff.

One way to reduce the need to use expensiveregistry staff is to encourage individuals providingregistry services to transition to civil servicepositions. However, there is little reason orregistry employees to do so, because CDCRcurrently has no cap on the number o hours amental health registry employee can work. As a


23/60

2014 15 BUDGET


result, individuals can earn more as registry staff.We note that CDCR has put in place such caps onregistry nurses in medical classications becauseo similar concerns about unnecessary costs.

LAO RecommendationsWe withhold recommendation on the

administrations adult population undingrequest until the May Revision. We will continueto monitor CDCRs populations, and makerecommendations based on the administrationsrevised population projections and budgetadjustments included in the May Revision.However, we recommend that the Legislaturedirect the department to make adjustments as parto the May Revision to reect the savings rom thedelayed activation o housing units at CHCF.

We also recommend that the Legislaturedirect the department to report during budgetsubcommittee hearings this spring on (1) theeasibility o instituting a cap or individualregistry employees in cases where such employeesare more costly than civil servants and (2) whatwould be an appropriate cap. Te cap would need

to be low enough to provide an incentive or theseemployees to transition to civil service, but not toolow that it inhibited the departments ability toprovide mental health services. Such in ormationwould assist the Legislature in determiningwhether and what type o cap should be adopted.o the extent a cap encourages registry employeesto transition to civil service, it could reduce theoverall cost o mental health services in CDCR.We urther recommend the Legislature requirethe department to report on how all o the savingsrealized rom mental health staff vacancieshas been used by the department, in order todetermine whether the activities that wereunded are consistent with legislative prioritiesand whether CDCRs budget should be adjustedaccordingly.

Prison Staffing and OvertimeEach year the state spends billions o dollars

annually both in base staffing costs and overtimecosts to ensure each o its prisons is adequatelystaffed and is able to handle its variou s workloaddemands. Below, we describe and identi yinefficiencies with how CDCR currently addressesthese staffing needs. In addition, we review theGovernors budget proposals related to CDCRsstaffing and overtime and recommend steps thedepartment could take to address its correctionalstaffing needs in a more cost-effective manner.

Background

Staffing the 34 adult prisons operated by CDCRrepresents a unique challenge. Tis is because manyduty assignments (re erred to as posts) mustbe lled 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Inparticular, many assignments lled by correctionalofficers, sergeants, and lieutenants are postedpositions. I a staff member is unavailable to lla post, the prison generally cannot leave the postunlled. Staff in these posts typically work one othree eight hour shifs (re erred to as watches) eachday, ve days per week and have two regular daysoff (RDOs). Tus, a single post is typically lled bythree different employees over the course o a day.Staff members assigned to the prisons watch officeare employed to ensure that all the posts are lledand are responsible or nding an employee capableo lling posts that are lef empty when anotheremployee is unavailable.

Steps aken to Fill Posts Lef Empty When

Staff Are Unavailable. Tere are different reasonswhy an employee is unavailable to ll an assignedpost, with employee leave use being the mostcommon. Each correctional employee used,on average, 365 hours o leave in 2011-12. Temost common type o leave used by correctionalemployees is sick leave. Other types o leave


24/60


25/60

2014 15 BUDGET


CDCR Budget or Relie Officers andPICOs. In order to estimate the number o relieofficers that should be budgeted or in a givenyear, CDCR has historically used a ormula thatincorporates both the amount o leave time (such

as vacation, sick leave, and training days) accruedby correctional officers as well as how mucho that leave time they use. Currently, CDCRestimates that or every ten correctional officerpositions, three relie officers must be budgetedor to account or the leave time that will likelybe used by regular correctional officers. Tis ratioo relie officers to correctional officers is knownas the relie actor. Te department also usesa similar process or budgeting relie officers toll posts lef empty by correctional sergeants andlieutenants. Te CDCR is budgeted in the currentyear or a total o about 4,500 correctional reliepositions, which consists o 3,800 correctionalofficers, 530 correctional sergeants, and about190 correctional lieutenants. In total, thisrepresents about$500 million in costs.

In addition, CDCR

has recently employedseveral hundredPICOs, accountingor 3.5 percent o thedepartments totalnumber o correctionalofficers. Because thedepartment is currentlyacing high correctional

officer vacancy rates,it plans to suspendplacing newly hiredcorrectional officers intothe PICO program ortwo years. During thistime the departmentplans to only offer new

hires permanent ull-time positions while itassesses whether its historical policy o assigning3.5 percent o its total correctional officers asPICOs should be permanently adjusted. TeCDCR does not have a budget specically or

PICOs. Instead, resources or these positions arederived rom unding budgeted or overtime andpositions that are vacant, as the use o PICOsreduces the need or these unds.

CDCR Spending on Overtime. In 2012-13,CDCR spent $279 million on correctional officer,sergeant, and lieutenant overtime costs. As shownin Figure 11, most o this spending is related toovertime to ll posts lef empty due to staff beingunavailable. Specically, almost two-thirds oCDCRs expenditures on overtime in 2012-13were related to sick leave, vacant positions, orother staff absences. Te remainder was spent onother workload-related overtime (such as medicalguarding and transportation).

2012-13

Figure 11

Sick Leave

Medical Guardingand Transportation

VacanciesOther StaffAbsences

Other Workload

Total: $279 Million

CDCR Spending on Overtime


26/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Governors Proposals

Te Governors 2014-15 budget proposes$207.2 million in General Fund support orovertime costs. Tis represents a slight increaserom the $201.3 million included in the 2013-14budget or overtime costs. In addition, the budgetproposes to change the methodology CDCR usesto calculate the relie actor. Under the proposal,the relie actor would be calculated based solelyon statewide actual leave usage rather than acombination o actual leave usage and accrualrates. In addition, the proposed methodologywould incorporate types o leave (such as urloughdays) that are not accounted or in the current

relie actor. Tese changes result in the need oran additional $9 million in General Fund supportand 84 positions in 2014-15. Under the Governorsproposal, the relie actor would be adjustedannually based on updated data on actual usage ostaff leave in the prior year. In addition, we note thatCDCR indicates that while the proposed relie actorchange is based on statewide data, it is currentlyin the process o calculating specic relie actorsor individual prisons that could be used to makeannual adjustments at each prison in the uture.

CDCR Budgeted for MoreOvertime Than Necessary

Our analysis o the way CDCR staffs its prisonsand manages overtime indicates that CDCRsovertime budget isunnecessarily large. Whilebudgeting or overtime

related to workloadand some absences isnecessary, the departmentdoes not need to set asideunding specically orovertime required to cover vacancies and most o thetypes o leave that result in

posts being empty. Tis is because unding or thesetypes o overtime can be redirected rom savingsresulting rom vacant positions. For example, whenovertime is needed to ll a post that is empty dueto a vacancy, the department can redirect unding

tied to the vacant position to pay or the overtime,as that unding is not being used to pay correctionalemployees. Similarly, because the departmentbudgets or enough relie officers to cover nearlyall o the leave taken by correctional employees,overtime is only necessary to cover or such leave ithere are vacant relie officer positions.

We also note that the amount o undingderived rom vacant positions is sufficient to ullycover overtime costs. Tis is because the amountbudgeted or each correctional position on a perhour basis, including benets and other non-salarycosts, exceeds the cost o the overtime necessaryto cover the number o hours typically worked bycorrectional employees, as is illustrated in Figure 12.While staff are generally paid one and a hal timestheir usual pay or overtime hours, the increasedcosts or the higher hourly wage is more than offsetby other actors. For example, when the state hires

additional correctional staff it must pay or theirretirement and benets whereas there are no suchcosts incurred or each additional hour o overtimeworked.

However, when CDCR incurs costs orovertime related to workload (such as medical

Figure 12

Amount Budgeted Per Vacant PositionExceeds Average Cost of Overtime

Ofcer Sergeant Lieutenant

Salary $70,128 $85,429 $96,108Benets and other costs 41,691 48,902 52,900 Total Amount Budgeted Per Position $111,819 $134,331 $149,008Average number of hours worked 1,712 1,688 1,728Hourly Amount Budgeted Per Vacancy $65.31 $79.58 $86.23

Average Overtime Hourly Cost $47.92 $59.18 $68.61


27/60


28/60

2014 15 BUDGET


CDCR Does Not Optimize Use ofRelief Officers and PICOs

As described above, CDCR establishes the relieactor by taking into account the amount o leavetime accrued and used by correctional employeesin prior years, which is then used to estimate thenumber o relie officer positions to budget or.Currently, this amounts to three relie officerpositions or every ten correctional officer positionsand slightly more or correctional sergeants andlieutenants. (Te administrations proposed changesto the relie actor would marginally increase theseratios or correctional officers, and slightly reducethem or sergeants and lieutenants.) However,

this represents the amount o relie officers CDCRneeds on average over the course o a year. While,in actuality, the amount o leave takenand byextension the number o relie officers neededissubject to seasonal variation. For example, officerstend to take more leave in the summer months andduring December, with less leave in the remainingmonths. By basing thenumber o relie officersneeded on an annualaverage, CDCR endsup budgeting or toomany relie officers inmost months o the year,and not enough in thesummer and December.Tis means that, i therewere no vacancies inrelie officer positions,

more correctionalemployees would likelyreport to work thannecessary eight monthso the year. Although vacancies can preventthis rom occurring, itstill demonstrates that

CDCRs budget includes more unding or relieofficers than necessary in most months o the year.Tis mismatch is illustrated in Figure 14, whichcompares the number o hours o leave correctionalemployees are currently likely to use in each

month with the number o hours o staffing thatrelie officers are likely to provide under CDCRscurrent approach to staffing, assuming there are no vacancies in relie officer positions.

CDCR Does Not Allocate Relie OfficersBased on Needs o Specic Institutions. Temismatch between an institutions need orcoverage and the number o relie positions it isbudgeted or is urther compounded by a aw inCDCRs method or allocating relie officers amongprisons. Currently, CDCR allocates relie positionsamong institutions based solely on the number onon-relie positions it has despite the act that staffleave usageand thus the need or relie officers varies signicantly among institutions. Such variation in leave usage occurs primarily because

Current Coverage Strategy Likely toResult in Mismatch Between Staffing and Needs a

Figure 14

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000Hours of Leave Needing Coverage

Hours of Coverage Provided

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Deca Estimate based on 2013-14 staffing patterns and 2011-12 leave usage.


29/60

2014 15 BUDGET


each institution has a different mix o more andless senior officers and more senior officers tend toaccrue and use leave at higher rates. For example,as shown in Figure 15, staff at Pelican Bay StatePrison in Crescent City, which has relatively ewer

senior officers, used about 29 percent less leaveper employee than those at Valley State Prison orWomen in Chowchilla in 2011-12. However, underthe current allocation procedure, each o theseinstitutions would be allocated relie positions atthe same rate.

CDCR Does Not ake Full Advantage o theBenets o Utilizing PICOs. In contrast to relie

officers, who are scheduled or work irrespective othe amount o need on the day they are scheduled,institutions can use PICOs only when needed. Tisexibility makes PICOs uniquely suited to addressthe seasonal and institutional variability in the

need to cover or officers using leave. In addition,PICOs generally cost less on an hourly basisaferadjusting or the number o hours a relie officeris likely to workthan relie officers. Moreover,PICOs earn their benets based on the numbero hours they work, in contrast to relie officerswhose benets are generally independent o theamount o time they work. Figure 16 (see next page)

Leave Hours Used Per Correctional Employee, 2011-12

Figure 15

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Pelican BayRehabilitation Center

RJ DonovanMedical Facility

Correctional CenterMen's Colony

Training FacilityHigh Desert

Institution for MenSierra

SacramentoMule CreekNorth Kern

Correctional InstitutionFolsom

Pleasant ValleyCalipatria

Substance Abuse FacilityCentinella

WascoSolano

Chuckawalla ValleyAvenal

Salinas Valley

San QuentinDeuel

IronwoodCorcoran

Women's FacilityInstitution for Women

Kern ValleyLancaster

Valley State

Amount of Leave Used by Correctional Staff Varies by Institution


30/60

2014 15 BUDGET


compares the hourly cost o a budgeted relie officerwho works 1,712 hours (about the average amountworked by correctional officers in 2011-12) with thehourly cost o a PICO that is in a similar pay range.

LAO RecommendationsIn order to address the issues we identied

above, we recommend that the Legislature(1) require CDCR to revise its budgetingmethodology or relie officers and PICOs and(2) adjust CDCRs overtime budget to more closelyreect its need or overtime spending. As wedescribe in more detail below, we estimate thesechanges would ree up a total o $129 millionrelative to the Governors proposed budget or2014-15.

Revise Budgeting Methodology or ReliePositions and PICOs. As discussed above, CDCRcurrently budgets relie positions based on averageannual data, which results in too many relieofficers being budgeted in many months in whicha less than average amount o leave is being used.In addition, CDCR allocates relie positions toinstitutions uni ormly, despite variance in the

amount o leave taken at each institution. Finally,

CDCR attempts to budget enough relie positionsto, on average, cover all the leave taken in a givenyear, even though PICO officers are more exibleand less costly. Although the Governors proposalto update the relie actor annually based on

actual leave usage in the prior year and to adoptinstitution specic relie actors is a step in the rightdirection, it does not go ar enough in addressingthe concerns discussed above. Specically, theproposal does not address variance in the need orrelie officers throughout the year and does not takeull advantage o the benets offered by utilizingmore PICOs.

In order to address these concerns, werecommend that the Legislature direct CDCRto revise its relie officer and PICO budgetingmethodology. Specically, we recommend thatCDCR budget only enough relie officers to eachinstitution to cover the minimum amount o leavetaken at each institution in a given year, and usePICO officers to cover any leave taken above thatamount. For example, under this approach, eachinstitutions allocation o relie officers that coveror correctional officers could be tied to the amount

o leave taken during the week or month in theprior year during whichthe least amount o leavewas used by correctionalofficers. o cover leavetaken above that amount,each institution wouldreceive a specic budgetto employ PICOs. Tiswould ensure thateach institution hasan allocation o relieofficers and PICOs thatcan exibly respond toseasonal variation inthe need or coverage, istailored to the institutions

Figure 16

PICOs Less Costly Per Hour Than Relief OfcersCost of a Relief Ofcer Position Cost of a PICO

Salary $70,128 $58,206Retirement 21,964 18,160Health, vision, dentala 12,600 12,600Workers compensation 3,147 3,147Medicare 1,017 844Cost of leaveb 6,460Equipment and other costs 2,963 2,963 Totals $111,819 $102,381Hours workedc 1,712 1,712Cost Per Hour $65.31 $59.80a Permanent Intermittent Correctional Ofcers (PICOs) that work 960 hours in one year earn full health benets.b Assumes PICO is at fourth step of K range salary scale, is scheduled regularly, and is compensated for all accrued sick and

vacation leave.c Assumes PICO works the same amount of hours as relief ofcers to allow for comparison. The actual average hours worked by

PICOs is likely less than 1,712.


31/60


32/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Governors Proposal

Te Governors 2014-15 budget proposes a$61.7 million General Fund augmentation and 147new positions to expand CDCRs recruitment andtraining o correctional officer candidates. Tiswould more than double the departments budget o$49.1 million or such purposes in the current-year.According to the administration, these resources areneeded to increase hiring to ll correctional officerpositions that are currently or expected to be vacant.Te proposal includes increased staff to recruitand evaluate correctional officer applicants andadditional resources or the academy to train cadets.ogether with the recent reduction to the length o

the academy training period, these changes wouldallow CDCR to increase the number o academygraduates rom 720 in 2013-14 to 3,400 in 2014-15.

CDCR Lacks Annual Process for AdjustingRecruitment and Training Capacity

Te growing number o correctional officer vacancies presents signicant operational challengesor the department. While the Governors proposalis a reasonable approach to addressing the problem,we are concerned that the problem could havebeen mitigatedor even avoided altogetheriCDCR had been conducting regular orecasts oits correctional officer need as part o the annualbudget process.

As discussed above, the process to recruit,quali y, train, and place individuals intocorrectional officer positions is extensive. As such,CDCR must orecast its need or new correctional

officers 12 to 18 months in advance in order toensure that the amount o resources it has devotedto recruiting and training officers at any point intime is sufficient to produce the number o newofficers it will need in the uture. Currently, theadministration adjusts its proposed unding levelsor CDCR or both the current and budget yearsbiannuallyrst in January and then again in

Mayto incorporate orecasts o key workloaddrivers (such as the total inmate population). Eventhough the department currently tracks data (suchas correctional officer vacancies and attrition rate)that could be used to project the need or uture

academy graduates, this data and adjustments to itsrecruitment and training capacity are not part othe departments biannual budget adjustments orany other regularly scheduled budget process.

Tis lack o planning can result in thedepartment not recruiting and training theappropriate number o cadets to meet its needs. Forexample, during the personnel reductions relatedto the 2011 realignment, the department assumedthat it would be eliminating more positionsthan it would be required to ll. Accordingly,the department did not run a basic academybetween March 2011 and May 2013. (We note thedepartment did operate transitional academieswhich allowed employees in one classicationlikeparole agentsto trans er into new classicationslike correctional officers.) However, correctionalstaff lef the department at higher rates thanexpected. As a result, CDCR will likely be acing

a staffing short all or the next couple o years asit tries to recruit and train enough officers to llthese vacancies. I the administration had routinelytook into account CDCRs training and recruitingneeds as part o the biannual budget process, thedepartment would have likely recruited and trainedenough officers to prevent the signicant short all itcurrently aces.

LAO Recommendations

Direct CDCR to Regularly Adjust Recruitmentand raining Capacity. We recommend that theLegislature direct the department to incorporateadjustments to its correctional officer recruitmentand training capacity into its biannual budgetadjustment process. Such adjustments should bebased on projections o its need or additional


33/60

2014 15 BUDGET


correctional officers at least 18 months into theuture to account or the time required to recruitand train new officers. Tis would allow thedepartment to better prepare or its uture needor correctional officers and to avoid mismatches

between the number o vacancies and the number onew academy graduates.

Direct CDCR to Continue to Fill PICOPositions. As discussed above, CDCR intends totemporarily suspend assigning new correctionalofficers to PICO positions in order to prioritizelling permanent ull-time and relie officerpositions. It is understandable that hiring PICOsmay not be the highest priority, particularly orprisons with high vacancy rates or permanentcorrectional officer positions. However, as wediscussed in an earlier section regarding prisonstaffing and overtime, there are benets to usingPICOs that the department is not currently takingull advantage o . Accordingly, we recommend thatthe Legislature direct the department to continueoffering newly trained correctional officers theoption o accepting PICO positions.

Drug Interdiction ProposalBackground

Data provided by CDCR indicate that druguse is prevalent in prison. For example, in June2013, 23 percent o randomly selected inmatestested positive or drug use. In addition, another30 percent re used to submit to testing, whichsuggests that the actual percentage o inmatesusing drugs is l ikely considerable.

Drug use in prison is problematic orseveral reasons. For example, according to thedepartment, the prison drug trade strengthensprison gangs and leads to disputes among inmatesthat can escalate into violence. Such violenceofen leads to security lock-downs which inter erewith rehabilitation by restricting inmate access

to programming. In addition, the presence odrugs in prison allows inmates to continue usingthem, thereby reducing the effectiveness o drugtreatment programs.

Governors ProposalTe Governors budget or 2014-15 proposes

to expand existing efforts related to drug andcontraband interdiction. In recent years, thedepartment has supplemented its base unding o$3 million or drug and contraband (such as cellphones) interdiction with one-time unds romasset or eitures. According to CDCR, its currentinterdiction efforts have been hampered by a lacko sufficient permanent unding. In recognition othis, the Governors budget or 2014-15 proposesan augmentation o $14 million in General Fundsupport and 81 positions to expand CDCRsinterdiction program. Under the proposal,these levels would increase to $18.5 million and148 positions in 2015-16. Te proposal consistso our separate initiatives aimed at deterring thesmuggling o drugs and contraband into prisonand deterring inmates rom using drugs. Tese

initiatives involve: (1) increasing rom 29 to 100 thenumber o trained canines to detect contrabandpossessed by inmates; (2) increasing rom 7 to 35the number o ion scanners available to detectdrugs possessed by inmates, visitors, or staff;(3) purchasing an additional 240,000 urinalysis kitsto randomly drug test inmates; and (4) equippinginmate visiting rooms with video surveillancetechnology and requiring inmates in visiting roomsto wear special clothing intended to prevent thesmuggling o drugs and other contraband.

Interdiction Proposal Has Merit,But Cost-Effectiveness of SpecicInitiatives Uncertain

Studies o the implementation o interdictioninitiatives in Cali ornia and in other states suggest


34/60

2014 15 BUDGET


that strategies similar to those being proposed bythe administration can be effective at reducingcontraband and drug use in prison. Tis, togetherwith the ongoing challenge posed by in-prison druguse, lead us to conclude that the administrations

goal o reducing contraband and drug use inprisons is both worthwhile and achievable.However, as we discuss below, it is unclear basedon our review o the research in this area whichinitiatives, or combination o initiatives, proposedby the administration are most cost-effective atreducing contraband and drug use in prison.

In 1999, CDCR initiated a two-year interdictionpilot program that included all our o theinitiatives identied in the administrations currentproposal. A study o this pilot program by theUniversity o Cali ornia, Los Angeles, ound thatwhile drug use declined over the course o the pilotprogram, most o the decline could be attributedto random urinalysis testingthe least costly othe initiatives proposed by the Governor. Te studyound that the other interdiction strategies (suchas canine units and ion scanners) did not appear tocontribute to declines in drug use. In addition, data

suggest that the other interdiction initiatives maynot be effective at detecting drugs. For example,over the course o the study period, the canineunits were involved in almost 9,000 searches thatresulted in only ten drug nds, and the use oion scannersone o the most costly initiativesproposed by the Governorresulted in only asingle drug nd.

We note, however, that certain aspectsregarding the implementation o the 1999 pilotprogram suggest that the above results are notnecessarily conclusive. For example, the ionscanners identied above were not used to scan visitors or staff, which CDCR intends to do underthe Governors proposal. We also note that theremay have been improvements in the technologyo available scanners since 1999. In addition, the

above pilot study was unable to determine theeffectiveness o visiting room video surveillanceequipment.

LAO Recommendation

While the Governors proposal to expandCDCRs drug and contraband interdiction effortshas merit, it is unclear what the most cost-effectivecombination o interdiction initiatives is. Tus,we recommend that the Legislature modi y theproposal to conduct a pilot o the various initiativesproposed by the Governor. Specically, werecommend the Legislature reduce the request rom$14 million in General Fund support in 2014-15($18.5 million in 2015-16) to $3 million annuallyon a three-year limited-term basis. Te reducedunding amount would allow the departmentto pilot test the our proposed interdictioninitiativesurinalysis testing, canine units, ionscanners, and visiting room surveillanceindifferent combinations in order to assess therelative effectiveness o the initiatives. TeLegislature could use the outcomes o the pilot todetermine which, i any, o the various initiatives

should be expanded to all o the states prisons.Te actual cost o the pilot program could vary

depending on how it is designed. Accordingly,we recommend that the Legislature adopt budgetbill language requiring that the department(1) contract with independent researcher experts(such as a university) to design and evaluatethe pilot program, (2) not expend any undsor the expanded interdiction initiatives untilit has notied the Legislature o the design andcost o the pilot program, (3) revert any unspentunds to the General Fund, and (4) report to theLegislature on the outcomes (including the relativecost-effectiveness o each initiative) o the pilotprogram by April 1, 2017. Tis would allow theevaluation to incorporate two ull years o data andor the results to in orm the 2017-18 budget process.


35/60

2014 15 BUDGET


Federal Receiver forInmate Medical Services

Augmentation for Inmate Pharmaceuticals

Background. In 2006, afer nding the stateailed to provide adequate medical care to prisoninmates, the ederal court in the Plata v. Browncase appointed a Receiver to take control over thedirect management o the states prison medicalcare delivery system rom CDCR. Te Receiversoffice is currently responsible or providingmedical pharmaceuticals prescribed by physiciansunder his management, as well as psychiatric anddental medications prescribed by psychiatrists

and dentists managed by CDCR. From 2004-05through 2010-11, the inmate pharmaceutical budgetincreased rom $136 million to $216 million. (Tepharmaceutical budget reects only the cost opharmaceuticals and not the cost o medicationdistribution or management.)

Increases in the inmate pharmaceuticalbudget can occur or several reasons, such asadditional inmates needing prescription drugsand increases in the rate at which inmatesare prescribed drugs. Moreover, we note thatpharmaceutical costs generally rise at a aster pacethan ination. For example, in 2012, average drugcosts increased approximately 3.8 percent andaverage prices or brand name drugs increased25.4 percent, compared to an overall 1.7 percentincrease in consumer prices. Brand name drugsare ofen prescribed when generic alternatives areunavailable due to patent protections. In addition,

while cost savings can be achieved by using aormulary (a list o pre erred medicines that costless), drugs that have ew alternatives are lesslikely to have ormulary options, which can alsocontribute to cost growth. Tis is particularly anissue or CDCR because the inmate populationis disproportionately likely to have health issues

or which there are no generic prescriptiontherapies available. For example, about 26 percento the inmate patient population has a seriousmental health diagnosis and many mental healthmedications are patent-protected, which results in

high mental health pharmaceutical costs.Recognizing the uncertainty associated with

pharmaceutical cost growth, the size and acuityo the patient population, and the potential costsavings o various programmatic changes initiatedby the Receiver, the Legislature increased theinmate pharmaceutical budget on a limited (ratherthan permanent) basis in recent years. Specically,since 2007-08, the Legislature has provided onlylimited-term augmentations (typically or one tothree years) to support inmate pharmaceuticalcosts. As we discuss below, spending on suchcosts has declined in the past couple o yearscompared to previous highs. Te enacted 2013-14budget includes a total o $178 million or inmatepharmaceuticals. O this amount, $51 millionwas provided on a limited-term basis. Figure 17(see next page) shows the amount spent onpharmaceuticals per inmate r

The 2014-15 Budget-Governor’s Criminal Justice Proposals

Documents

Transcript of The 2014-15 Budget-Governor’s Criminal Justice Proposals