We are fighting crime across California. For more information about our work in your state or in our national office use the drop down menu below.

2008 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PRIORITIES

As an organization of California's sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys and crime survivors, we know that there is no substitute for tough law enforcement. But we also know from years of crime-fighting experience and rigorous research evidence that, to safeguard our communities, we need to take steps to prevent kids from ever becoming involved in crime- such as providing high-quality preschool, child care, and after-school programs; supporting effective interventions for troubled youth; and helping to ensure that youth graduate from high school.

We appreciate that policymakers, even in these difficult economic times, recognize that public safety must remain a high priority. In order to protect public safety most effectively, we call on you to listen to those on the front lines and support the following legislative and budget priorities:

• Interventions for Juvenile Offenders
• Quality Preschool and Child Care Programs
• Quality After-School Programs
• Dropout Prevention
• Gang Prevention

1. Interventions for Juvenile Offenders

• Protect $119 million in existing funding for the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA), and maintain JJCPA's link to the COPS program.
• Protect $22.3 million in existing funding for the Juvenile Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction program.
• Protect $201.4 million in existing funding for Probation Services and Camps.
• Support the Budget proposal for $66 million in funding (a $42 million increase) to counties to help serve the increased number of offenders resulting from juvenile justice realignment.
• Support SB 1147 (Calderon) to ensure that Medi-Cal-eligible juvenile offenders are not denied access to health and mental health services when they transition out of custody.

Each year, there are over 200,000 arrests of juveniles in California. While many young people learn their lesson, too many offend again and again, at a great cost to public safety and taxpayers. For example, state custody at the Division of Juvenile Justice costs over $200,000 per youth per year.

Intensive family interventions for juvenile offenders placed at home or in their communities are proven to prevent juveniles from re-offending. For example, through the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) program, juvenile offenders are closely supervised by carefully-chosen and trained foster parents, while their parents receive complementary training. MTFC has been proven to successfully cut the average number of re-arrests for seriously delinquent juveniles in half. Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST) have similar outcomes. These programs pay off in saved lives, reduced incarceration costs and other fiscal savings. For example, studies of intensive family interventions show these approaches can save as much as $14 for every $1 invested.

The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) provides a dedicated funding stream for local juvenile justice programs designed to curb juvenile crime, including intensive family interventions, programs for first-time offenders, after-school programs for at-risk teens, gang and truancy prevention, job training and diversion programs. JJCPA currently supports 168 programs in 56 participating counties, and serves over 105,000 at-risk and delinquent youth annually. According to the State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, comparison youth were 24 percent more likely to be arrested than youth in JJCPA-funded programs. JJCPA funding is linked to the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) program, which funds local law enforcement agencies for front-line public safety services.

In addition, the Juvenile Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program funds a variety of evidence-based programs, including intensive family interventions, for juvenile offenders with mental health needs. Thirteen of 20 counties with MIOCR grants are using them for proven intensive family interventions-Functional Family Therapy, Multisystemic Therapy, and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. However, the need for proven and promising interventions for juvenile offenders far outpaces the supply of available funding. For example, the proven intensive family interventions MTFC, FFT, and MST are serving only 4 percent of the more than 20,000 eligible juvenile offenders in California.

The existence of Proposition 63/Mental Health Services Act funding should not be considered as an excuse to cut or eliminate MIOCR funding. In practice, Proposition 63 has not been an effective alternative to MIOCR. There are many competing priorities for Proposition 63 funding, and there has been resistance to funding juvenile offenders in many counties. Also, MIOCR, with its competitive grant process, has been far more effective at funding programs proven to cut crime. Only four out of 58 counties are using Proposition 63 funding for proven intensive family therapies, compared to 13 of the 20 MIOCR counties.

Full funding of juvenile justice programs is especially critical given the recent enactment of juvenile justice reform through SB 81, which shifted many juvenile offenders from state to county custody and provided new funding to counties to address their increased responsibilities. To be successful, juvenile justice reform needs to build on the success of existing interventions. In fact, the Administration cited the success of JJCPA in framing its reform proposal last year, crediting it with deterring "countless thousands" of juveniles from ending up in custody.

Effective juvenile justice reform is at risk because only the $42 million in new SB 81 funding is exempt from across-the-board cuts. After taking into account the $34 million in total cuts to JJCPA, MIOCR and juvenile probation camps and services, overall state funding related to juvenile offenders would increase by less than $8 million-even though counties will be handling hundreds more juvenile offenders who, before SB 81, would have ended up in state custody. As a result, there is a risk that new funding intended for reform could flow to gaps created by cuts, rather than be used to provide enhanced services for the increased number of offenders under county supervision. Alternatively, if effective front-end interventions are cut back, counties may face far more high-risk offenders on the back end than they can handle. Eliminating MIOCR, in particular, could jeopardize reform because SB 81 intensified the need for mental health interventions, given that historically a very high percentage youth in state custody suffer from mental illness.

Legislatively, SB 1147 would require the Department of Health Care Services to ensure that Medi-Cal eligible youth are not terminated from coverage when they are in custody, so they do not need to reapply for Medi-Cal when they are released. Currently, state law requires that Medi-Cal eligible youth who enter juvenile hall or a county probation camp or ranch immediately lose their Medi-Cal eligibility. As a result, they must reapply for Medi-Cal coverage once they are released, although this application process often takes several months to be completed.

The impact of terminating Medi-Cal coverage can be substantial, particularly given that an estimated 40 to 90 percent of youth in the California juvenile justice system are in need of mental health care. During the critical time while they are transitioning back into their community and trying to stay out of trouble, many youth are left without access to needed health and mental health services-such as medications that can control destructive behavior and effective therapeutic interventions. While juvenile offenders in custody are not entitled to Medi-Cal reimbursement pursuant to federal law, public safety and the juveniles themselves will be better served if they immediately resume coverage as they transition back home. Delaying access to effective interventions not only increases the chance that juvenile offenders' conditions will worsen, it also jeopardizes public safety and costs taxpayers money.

2. Quality Preschool and Child Care Programs

• Oppose the Budget proposal to reduce funding for state preschool and other child care and development programs by $198.9 million.
• Support SB 1629 (Steinberg) to improve the effectiveness of state-funded preschool programs by creating a Quality Improvement Commission.
• Support AB 2759 (Jones) to reform existing state preschool programs by consolidating and streamlining existing child development programs that serve children 3 to 5 years of age.

Numerous studies have confirmed the social and economic benefits of early education for children, especially those who are low-income. Children who attend effective preschool programs are better prepared for kindergarten and have higher language and cognitive skills in the first years of elementary school. New research from the California Dropout Research Project shows that preschool is one of the most effective means of increasing school graduation rates. Additionally, children who attend quality preschools are far less likely to get involved in crime down the road. In fact, one controlled study found that children who did not attend preschool were five times more likely to become chronic lawbreakers by the time they were 27 years old, compared to similar children who did attend preschool. Preschool also provides tremendous economic benefits "with estimated rates of return that would make a venture capitalist envious," according to Brookings Institution researchers. One study showed that preschool cut crime, welfare and other costs so much that it saved the public more than $16 for every $1 invested-including more than $11 in crime savings.

High-quality programs-those with well-trained teachers, effective curriculum and parental involvement-are required to reap these great public safety and educational benefits. However, the state needs to do more to promote quality in preschool and child care. Research found that only one out of every seven child care centers (primarily preschools) studied in California was of good or excellent quality. Low quality significantly diminishes the state's opportunity to reduce crime by offering preschool.

Despite the tremendous potential of preschool, many California families do not have access to an effective preschool program. While the state provides preschool subsidies for some low-income families, its subsidy programs are so under-funded that most eligible children are denied assistance. In a 2005 survey, three out of four (76 percent) publicly-funded preschools surveyed in California had waiting lists, forcing them to turn away tens of thousands of 3- to 5-year-olds from families who cannot afford to pay for preschool on their own. In 2007, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimated that there were approximately 34,000 preschool-age children waiting for services on the state's Centralized Eligibility List.

Further limiting access to preschool is a tremendous shortage of preschool classroom space. A 2007 analysis by the Advancement Project showed that California lacks facility space for 1 in 5 preschoolers, and there exist pockets of extreme need in nearly every county in the state. Unfortunately, the facilities shortfall disproportionately affects low-income children, children of color, children whose parents do not speak English at home and who did not finish high school - the very children who would most benefit from expanding access to preschool.

The proposed budget would reduce funding for state preschool and other child care and development programs by $198.9 million. This cut includes a $28 million reduction to State Preschool and a 25 percent ($4 million) reduction to the AB 212 program, which improves preschool and teacher quality by supporting teacher training and retention. Based on Department of Finance demographic projections, the proposed budget cut could deny access to as many as 17,000 young and school-age children, including nearly 8,000 preschool-age children. The children eligible for state-funded preschool programs are those who tend to benefit most from this early intervention. Any cuts to state preschool programs would deny access to at-risk children and diminish one of the most effective crime-prevention tools in California's arsenal.

Additionally, we support through legislation the following proposals to expand and improve preschool in California:

SB 1629 (Steinberg) would establish a commission to create a state Early Learning Quality Improvement System that would develop a framework for improving the quality of early learning programs. The framework would include a graduated funding model to help existing and future preschool programs reach and maintain higher levels of program quality. In addition to providing programs with the resources necessary to improve quality, a graduated funding model would incentivize the early care and education workforce to obtain higher levels of education.

AB 2759 (Jones) would consolidate and streamline existing Title V child development programs that serve children 3 to 5 years of age and create a more coherent and efficient publicly-funded preschool program. A streamlined program would allow policymakers to evaluate the programs the state funds and make systematic improvements or expansions more easily. It would also reduce administrative burdens on programs-which currently may have to account for up to five separate state contracts annually-so that they can focus on providing quality preschool. Additionally, the consolidation proposed by this bill would make preschool more transparent and accessible to parents and caregivers, which would enable more low-income children to attend preschool.

3. Quality After-School Programs

• Oppose the budget proposal to reduce state funding (by ballot initiative) for before- and after-school programs by $59.6 million.
• Oppose SB 1492 (McClintock) or similar proposals to essentially repeal Proposition 49 and its guarantee of after-school funding guaranteed.
• Support SB 1674 (Torlakson) in order to improve the effectiveness of Proposition 49 by assisting community-based organizations and small schools.
• Oppose cuts to the state child care system that would reduce child care assistance for school-age children.

After-school programs provide safe places and constructive alternatives for children during the critical 2 PM to 6 PM hours when violent juvenile crime peaks. Research from California and across the nation shows that after-school programs can prevent crime and truancy, cut drug and alcohol use, reduce teen pregnancy, and increase academic achievement.

In 2002, California voters enacted Proposition 49, which increased funding for the state's After School Education and Safety program for elementary and middle school students by over $400 million, to a total of $550 million. The new funding became available in early 2007. However, even with Proposition 49 in place for elementary and middle school students, hundreds of thousands of students from low-income working families are still left unserved by the major state and federal after-school and school-age child care programs. In fact, demand for Proposition 49 funding in 2006 far exceeded the supply of new funding-close to $200 million in applications had to be turned away.

The proposed 2008-2009 budget would apply its across-the-board cut to Proposition 49 state after-school funding. The January budget proposes a one-time reduction of $59.6 million in after-school funding, which would have to be approved by the voters through a ballot initiative, due to Proposition 49's funding guarantee. The budget cut would deny after-school programs to as many as 44,000 children. In addition, the January budget proposal includes cuts to school-age child care programs through the proposed $198.9 million cut to child care and development programs.

Another proposed ballot initiative, SB 1492 (McClintock), would for all practical purposes repeal Proposition 49, giving the Legislature full discretion to eliminate funding provided by Proposition 49. Under Proposition 49 currently, the guarantee of $550 million in minimum funding for after-school programs is not subject to amendment, ensuring that after-school programs are a stable resource in California's communities. This measure would put at risk approximately 4,000 after-school programs that are already in place and serve as many as 400,000 students across the state.

SB 1674 (Torlakson) would help improve the effectiveness of Proposition 49, by assisting community-based organizations and small schools operating after-school programs. For example, community-based organizations that subcontract to provide after-school programming would be entitled to a reasonable percentage of administrative funding, and small schools with Proposition 49 grants would receive a minimum funding level of $50,000 provided they meet certain attendance requirements.

4. Dropout Prevention

• Support the Budget proposal for $10.3 million for improved educational data collection, including $8.1 million to fully fund the contract to develop a state student data system, which would help accurately measure graduation and dropout rates.
• Oppose the Budget proposals to reduce funding for California Partnership Academies by $2.6 million and reduce State Preschool funding by $28 million.
• Support SB 1532 (Steinberg) to establish higher goals for improving graduation rates.
• Support SB 1251 (Steinberg) to improve measurement of high school graduation rates by including, and giving partial credit for, those students who graduate in 5 or 6 years.
• Support SB 1298 (Simitian) to establish a commission to develop an integrated, statewide education information system.
• Support SB 1425 (Steinberg) to enable researchers, policymakers, advocates and schools to access education data, in order to promote evaluation and identification of programs effective at increasing graduation rates.

California faces a dropout crisis that poses a significant threat to public safety. An estimated one in three California high school students does not graduate from high school on time, although California does not yet have a reliable data system to measure graduation rates.

High school dropouts are three and one-half times more likely than high school graduates to be arrested, and more than eight times as likely to be in jail or prison. Across the country, 68 percent of state prison inmates do not receive a high school diploma. According to researchers, a 10 percentage point increase in graduation rates reduces murder and assault rates by about 20 percent, which would prevent 500 murders and over 20,000 aggravated assaults in California each year.

Keeping kids in school and on the path to graduation is one of the most effective crime-prevention tools around. Proven interventions such as high-quality preschool and smaller learning communities at high schools have been proven to improve graduation and dropout rates. For example, evidence from two long-term evaluations of the effects of preschool show that participating in high-quality preschool increases high school graduation rates by as much as 44 percent. And researchers estimate that implementation of the "First Things First" small learning communities program with student and family advisors would yield 16 extra high school graduates for every 100 students enrolled. California's career-themed small learning communities program, California Partnership Academies, has yielded promising results regarding dropout and graduation rates.

Despite the difficult budget year and across-the-board cuts, the proposed budget for education includes one significant new measure: $10.3 million for improved data collection, which includes $8.1 million to fully fund the contract to develop a statewide student data system, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, that would accurately measure graduation and dropout rates. However, the across-the-board proposed budget cuts would negatively impact two programs in particular that have been linked to improved dropout and graduation rates. The budget would cut the California Partnership Academies by $2.6 million (from $23.5 million to $20.9 million), and it would reduce State Preschool funding by $28 million (from $441 million to $413 million).

Additionally, we support through legislation the following proposals to help improve California's graduation rates:

SB 1532 (Steinberg) would set higher expectations for improving graduation rates. Currently, the state allows a school with a 60 percent graduation rate to take more than 200 years to bring its rate up to the state's target of 83 percent, and still be deemed to have made "adequate yearly progress," which simply requires an improvement of 0.1 percent each year. This bill sets the target graduation rate at 90 percent and establishes a 20-year timetable to reach the target rate, asking schools to increase rates by 10 percent of the difference between their present rate and the target rate every two years. It also provides needed flexibility for schools using state funds to assist students at risk of not graduating. In order to effectively protect public safety, increasing graduation rates at California's high schools must be a high priority. The more ambitious, yet reasonable, expectations provided by SB 1532 are an important step towards improved graduation rates.

SB 1251 (Steinberg) would improve the measurement of high school graduation rates and provide incentives for schools to assist students who need extra time to graduate. The measure would require the California Department of Education to calculate 5- and 6-year graduation rates and give partial credit under the Academic Performance Index to schools that help students earn a diploma in five or six years.

SB 1298 (Simitian) would help identify what is and is not effective at getting kids to graduate; this information will help improve graduation rates and as a result make our communities safer. The measure would establish a data commission to develop a comprehensive, statewide education information system that will help inform policymaking and improve instruction and learning. The data system would support program evaluation to help identify which programs are and are not effective at improving different measures of student performance, including graduation rates. It would also provide connections between K-12 and other systems-such as preschool, higher education, workforce, juvenile justice, corrections, and foster care-to promote information sharing and evaluation as students move across systems.

Including preschool in the data system is crucial because research shows quality preschool is one of the most effective ways to boost graduation rates. Inclusion of preschool will allow policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of the state's preschool delivery system in improving school success and assess whether the effect varies among preschool programs and/or population groups. This will help policymakers make informed decisions about future funding for preschool programs and determine if improvements or expansions are needed. The bill would also provide state policymakers with powerful and reliable indicators of future crime and incarceration. If data show that specific types of school failure were strongly correlated with future crime, the state could fund appropriate interventions.

An expanded educational data system could also enable policymakers to save significant dollars in future budget years by de-funding programs not correlated to any successful outcomes. Indeed a fully-funded and analyzed data system would enable policymakers to make the state's public education system as effective and cost-efficient as possible.

SB 1425 (Steinberg), would enable researchers, policymakers, advocates and schools to access education data, which in turn will help identify what steps and what investments are needed to increase graduation rates. This measure would promote evaluation and identification of programs effective at increasing graduation rates, while taking care to comply with federal and state laws that protect student rights and privacy. It is consistent with the recommendations of the Legislative Analyst's Office and would enable access to data through the California Department of Education, without requiring researchers to seek approval school district by school district.

5. Gang Prevention

• Support the Budget proposal for $9.5 million for the Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy to provide challenge grants for community-based strategies to prevent gang and youth violence; and support priority in funding to comprehensive, evidence-based approaches (such as the Ceasefire model implemented in Boston, Stockton and San Francisco) that target high-risk offenders and incorporate prevention, intervention and suppression in a collaboration among city, county and community-based agencies.

Research shows there are proven strategies to cut gang-related violence. These models combine close supervision and swift consequences for gang and youth crime, coordinated with collaborative community services to help youth get off drugs, stay in school or find a job. Boston, Philadelphia and Baton Rouge have rapidly reduced violent crime by gang members and other troubled youths. After Boston adopted its collaborative anti-gang effort citywide called Operation Ceasefire, youth homicides dropped by two-thirds. In the two Philadelphia police districts where the Philadelphia collaborative approach was first implemented, youth homicides dropped twice as fast as in the rest of Philadelphia. And in Baton Rouge, youths in the program had one-fifth as many new violent offenses as similar youths not yet served by the program. Stockton and San Francisco have implemented similar models.

Last year, the Governor and the Legislature created the Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy and provided $9.5 million to cities and community-based organizations for local anti-gang suppression, intervention and prevention programs, as part of the Governor's California Gang Reduction, Intervention and Prevention Program (CalGRIP). The proposed 2008-2009 budget includes another $9.5 million for the Governor's Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy to provide additional challenge grants for community-based strategies to prevent gang and youth violence.