MLK PARADE - Deputy Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County

How the Proposed State Budget will affect us
Message from Sheriff Bill Gore
When newly elected Governor Brown
announced his state budget the second week of
January, there was a collective intake of breath
statewide. With a $12.5 billion reduction in
expenditures and a plan to increase revenues
by $12 billion, the proposal looks squarely at
California’s finances and does not shrink from
the hard, ugly realities.
His budget plan touches on every aspect
of government—the education of children
and the care of the elderly, highways and
transportation, welfare and jobs, and of course
law enforcement and crime. In making his
public announcement, he also provided private
briefings to law enforcement—and for good
reason. The budget proposal contains a plan
that, if implemented, will result in historic
changes in criminal justice in California.
In a conference call, Secretary of CDCR Matt
Cate outlined key changes contained in the
governor’s plan:
Realignment. Under the plan, low-level felons,
currently sent to State Prison, would serve
their time in county jails. These criminal
defendants—convicted of non-serious, nonviolent,
non-sexual crimes—serve (with good
time credits) an average of 11 to 12 months in
State Prison. I asked Secretary Cate how many
of those offenders there were, and he estimated
that there are on any given day roughly
30,000 such inmates in prison. Generally,
San Diego County’s share of the prison
population is approximately 7.5 percent. We
would, therefore, under this plan, add as many
as 2,200 inmates to our average daily jail
population.
Parole Supervision. As you know, CDCR
implemented a major parole reform this
past year. For the first time felons were
released without any supervision (called
“non-revocable parole”) and caseloads
were modified to focus on the most serious
offenders. Under the Governor’s plan, State
parole would eventually disappear altogether,
and the responsibility would become that of
local jurisdictions—the County’s Probation
Department working with the sheriff and local
police. In connection with that change, any
parolee whose parole was revoked would serve
his time for the revocation in County jail.
Those sentences average about three to four
months. This would again add inmates to our
local jails.
5 Silver Star February 2011
Juvenile Justice. Back in 2007, Governor
Schwarzenegger signed legislation that
made sweeping changes to the juvenile
justice system. Under the Realignment of
the California Juvenile Corrections System,
the California Youth Authority was buried
and replaced by CDCR’s Division of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ). Juvenile Realignment transferred
legal authority over most of California’s
juvenile felons from the State of California to
the counties, specifically to county probation
departments. That left a residual of about
1,250 juvenile inmates in state facilities;
these were the most dangerous juvenile
offenders. The Governor’s plan would make
the shift of responsibility complete with all
juvenile offenders being housed locally with
responsibility for them falling, presumably, to
county probation departments.
Obviously, these are major changes. If
implemented, they would dramatically
reshape criminal justice in California. They
will without question change how our business
is done.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. The current
price tag for housing inmates at the State level
has grown to unacceptable levels. For those
1,250 juveniles in DJJ facilities, the cost per
ward is now well over $200,000 per year. And
while the cost of housing adults in State Prison
is not nearly that high, the cost for them to
come into the system for short periods of
time—either for their commitment offense or
a parole violation—remains disproportionately
expensive. There’s no question that it would
be an overall savings to the “system” and to
taxpayers to house these offenders locally.
There’s also no question that there are
some things we could do better from our
detention facilities. Right now our offering of
educational opportunities and drug treatment
is limited because of the duration of the
stay of most offenders in our jails. Longer
commitments—say for a year or more—for
felons who would remain in our jails under
the Governor’s plan provide an opportunity
to devote greater attention to rehabilitative
and educational programs. In addition, this
population of longer-term, low-level offender
could possibly serve as a resource for brush
clearing and fire-break services, as well as
trash removal from roadways and parks and
even graffiti removal.
The changes could be viewed as real
opportunities. Here’s the catch. Unless
resources accompany the policy changes, the
realignment of responsibilities will fail. In
our conversations, Secretary Cate is quick to
state that the Governor realizes that the plan,
however meritorious, cannot work unless
there are funds to make it work. That’s good to
hear. My view is that realignment policy and
resource needs are inseparable.
In that connection, the Governor has proposed
asking Californians to approve an extension
of revenues scheduled to expire in June of
this year— namely a 1 percent sales tax and a
temporary .15 percent vehicle registration fee.
What will happen if the voters don’t approve
the extension of those revenue sources Is
there a backup plan to balance the budget
There is, according to Secretary Cate, no “Plan
B.”
So, what do we take from this at this time I
see four things.
First, nothing is going to happen right away.
State lawmakers must first approve the
governor’s approach; there will be public
debate and, you can be sure, some political
posturing. We must wait and see how the
legislature responds.
Second, the pure historic weight of the
proposals and the high stakes of the financial
drama playing out in Sacramento, will make
for an amazingly interesting year. We will, as
they say on TV, stay tuned.
Third, we need to take a studied approach and
provide our best guidance to the Governor
and elected representatives—locally and in
Sacramento—on the merits of the proposals as
they affect law enforcement. I’ve had, among
others, the Undersheriff, Commanders Miller
and Ingrassia from our Detentions Services
Bureau, and our Chief Financial Officer Jill
Serrano sit in on conference call briefings, and
they are at work studying the impact of the
governor’s proposals. Our aim is to be careful
and reflective in our response to the proposals.
I don’t believe a knee-jerk or emotional
response contributes to this very important
discussion.
Finally, whatever changes come our way, I
am confident that we will handle them in the
way we have learned works best. We will be
transparent; giving the public the straight talk
they deserve. We will operate as a team within
our department and with our partners in law
enforcement. We are at our best when we work
together in common purpose. I’ll keep you
advised. Meanwhile, do well and stay safe.