Legislative Analyst's Office, December 2002

Recommended Legislation
Criminal Justice

Department of Corrections

Enact Reforms in Prison Industry Authority

Recommendation

Privatize the Prison Industry Authority (PIA) as an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. Focus PIA on providing job training and other services aimed at preventing second-strike offenders from coming back to state prison with 25-years-to-life third-strike sentences. Also, enact other changes to restructure PIA management, improve fiscal accountability, do away with protected markets, establish clear rules for competition, allow for new private partnerships, and measure mission performance.

Rationale

Following a number of years of poor financial performance, the PIA has improved, but the state continues to receive a poor return on its nearly $97 million contribution in buildings and equipment for the program. The PIA's progress has been hampered by an ever-shifting and muddled mission, constraints on inmate productivity, governmental constraints such as the state's personnel system, and a weak internal governance structure.

LAO Reference

Please see Reforming the Prison Industry Authority, April 1996.

LAO Contact

Lisa Mangat: 319-8341


Department of the Youth Authority

Modification to County Fee Process

Recommendation

Enact legislation to modify the process by which parole consideration dates are established for Youth Authority wards with less serious offenses. Specifically, the process should be modified to permit counties to have a greater say in the length of stay of wards that they send to the Youth Authority.

Rationale

When a young offender is accepted by the Youth Authority as a new admission, he becomes a ward of the department, and all decisions regarding length of stay, parole, and parole revocation are at the sole discretion of the Youthful Offender Parole Board (YOPB). Current law also requires counties to pay a fee to the state for each offender they send to the Youth Authority. Counties pay significantly higher fees for wards sent to the Youth Authority for less serious offenses (YOPB categories V through VII) than serious offenses. Because the counties pay for a large share of the costs of these less serious wards, the counties should have a role in determining the optimal length of stay for the wards, rather than leaving the decision solely to the YOPB. There are several options for how this could be accomplished.

LAO Reference

Please see our 1999-00 Analysis, page D-105.

LAO Contact

Jeff Cummins: 319-8343


Department of the Youth Authority

Adjustment to County Fees to Account for Inflation

Recommendation

Enact legislation to periodically adjust the fees charged to counties in order to account for the effects of inflation.

Rationale

The basic fees charged to counties for young offenders committed to the Youth Authority were increased in 1996 from $25 per ward per month (the level set in 1961) to $150 per ward per month. The increase accounted for the effects of inflation over 35 years. The new fees should similarly be adjusted at least every three years in the future to account for inflation in order to protect the financial interests of the state and ensure that the counties are not subject to such a radical upward adjustment as was the case in 1996.

LAO Reference

Please see our 200203 Analysis, page D-48.

LAO Contact

Jeff Cummins: 319-8343


Department of Justice

Enact Changes in Responsibilities and Relationships With Local Governments

Recommendation

• Designate Department of Justice (DOJ) as the lead agency for all interactions with foreign governments related to the prosecution of persons committing crimes in California who have fled to their home countries.

• Require local law enforcement agencies to pay for the costs of services provided by the DOJ's crime laboratories.

• Require counties to reimburse the state for legal work performed by DOJ on behalf of district attorneys who are disqualified from handling local cases due to conflicts of interest.

Rationale

Designating DOJ as lead agency for all foreign prosecutions would enhance law enforcement coordination efforts between foreign governments and California. Requiring local governments to pay for crime lab services and prosecution in conflict of interest cases would properly align local government's funding and programmatic responsibilities for investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.

LAO Reference

Foreign prosecution: Please see our 1997-98 Analysis, page D-179. Reimbursement for crime lab services: Please see our 1999-00 Analysis, page D-133. Reimbursement for legal work in conflict of interest cases: Please see our 1988-89 Analysis, page 53.

LAO Contact

Jeff Cummins: 319-8343


Return to 2002 Recommended Legislation Table of Contents

Continue to 2002 Recommended Legislation Resources

Return to LAO Home Page