State of California

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
February 23, 2005
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
The Honorable Don Perata
President pro Tempore of the Senate
and members of the Senate

The Honorable Dick Ackerman
Senate Minority Leader

The Honorable Fabian Núñez
Speaker of the Assembly
and members of the Assembly

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Assembly Minority Leader

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger and members of the Legislature:
The Little Hoover Commission has reviewed the Governor’s plan to reorganize the Youth and
Adult Correctional Agency, creating a new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The
Commission has concluded that the plan, if effectively and swiftly implemented, would enable
the department to significantly improve the performance of correctional programs and enhance
public safety. Part of this calculus relies on assurances of further improvements by Secretary
Hickman during the Commission’s public hearing.
Consequently, the Commission
recommends that the Legislature allow the plan to go into effect and continue to work to solve
problems that are not solved by the reorganization plan. The Commission will review the
progress of the reforms in one year, with a particular focus on improvements in youth
corrections.
The Governor’s Reorganization Plan addresses concerns that the correctional system’s
organizational structure contributes to persistent and serious problems, including egregious
cost overruns, inmate abuse, and parolee failure. The plan strengthens an ambiguous chain of
command, thus increasing accountability throughout the organization. It focuses the new
department on performance assessment and rehabilitation – elements critical to improving
outcomes. It also adds important new functions, including research to facilitate the use of
evidence-based strategies; information technology to improve management; and, risk
management to change practices that increase liabilities. Finally, the plan centralizes shared
services to eliminate duplication, leverage spending and reduce costs.
The Commission’s public process did identify shortcomings in the plan that should be
addressed. Foremost, the plan would eliminate the Youth Authority as an independent
department and integrate it into the larger and substantially different adult prison system.
Many critical functions of the Youth Authority, including education, parole services and health
care, would be merged with those of the adult system.
Youth advocates and others fear that efforts to improve the State’s beleaguered juvenile justice
system would be overwhelmed by the enormity and complexity of the adult system. Those
fears are well-founded and have led some to suggest that the plan should be rejected. But
rejecting a plan that represents the best chance in decades to improve the failing adult system
is not the answer. Rejection of the plan would be no guarantee that the youth system would be
improved and – at best – would delay long overdue improvements in adult corrections.

Under the reorganization statute, the plan cannot be amended without starting the process
over. But the plan does not tie the hands of correctional officials and the Legislature or prevent
them from working to continue the long-term evolution of the youth and adult correctional
systems. The Legislature should allow the plan to go into effect and subsequently address – on
a comprehensive statewide scale – long-standing juvenile justice issues. Those include the
need for a statewide strategy for juvenile justice, a continuum of facilities, stable funding for
county programs and a means to ensure that services are comprehensive, evidence-based and
well managed. Efforts have already begun and the secretary should pursue them aggressively.
The administration has candidly acknowledged the most egregious problems in the correctional
system and has taken credible steps to develop solutions. But the system is large, costly and
by its physical nature hidden from public scrutiny. The correctional system needs an
independent and expert advisory and oversight body to assess its progress and provide the
factual information necessary for policy-makers and the public to hold it accountable. The
Governor and Legislature should designate such a body to ensure that reforms are effectively
managed and outcomes are publicly reported.
Importantly, the plan places a renewed focus on preparing inmates to return to their
communities and parole reforms to reduce future crime and reincarceration. At the same time,
the administration has decided to cut programs that would support those efforts as the easiest
way to address the budget deficit. If the administration is serious about improving the
performance of the correctional system, it would prioritize programs that reduce the number of
offenders who fail parole and are returned to prison. It would reallocate funds from ineffective
efforts, to support evidence-based strategies. For example, many parole violators returned to
prison for drug use could receive more frequent testing and drug treatment in the community.
Community-based halfway houses that are less costly and more effective could be expanded.
Similarly, the success of the department in better managing its efforts will hinge on the quality
of information it has about offenders and programs. The agency lacks the information
technology needed to manage inmates and employees, programs and institutions. The prisons
only recently were equipped with e-mail. The plan calls for a comprehensive information
technology system by 2010 – a timeline that may stifle the anticipated improvements. The
Department of Finance and the State’s Chief Information Officer should assist the secretary to
accelerate the technology improvements.
In short, the reorganization plan, while not perfect, is a major step forward for California’s
correctional system. It provides an organizational structure that will enable its leaders to
pursue the bold reforms they envision. Ultimately, however, success will depend on how well
the plan is implemented. It will work only if the goals are clear, the leadership is committed
and the culture is transformed. It will require continued support and oversight from policymakers and stakeholders alike.
The Commission appreciates the assistance of the public officials, offender advocates and
subject matter experts who contributed to this review.

Reconstructing Government:
A Review of the Governor's Reorganization Plan:
Reforming California's Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
The Reorganization Plan............................................................................................... 3
Strengths of the Plan..................................................................................................... 7
Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................................... 11
A Critical First Step – Recommendations ................................................................. 19
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix A: Governor's Reorganization Plan...........................................................................27
Appendix B: Public Hearing Witnesses and Public Comments...............................................41
Appendix C: List of Submitted Written Comments ...................................................................43
Appendix D: Senator Charles S. Poochigian Concurrence .....................................................45
Appendix E: Senator Liz Figueroa Abstention..........................................................................47

Notes............................................................................................................................. 49

Table of Sidebars & Charts
The Reorganization Statute .................................................................................................................1
Independent Review Panel..................................................................................................................3
On the Web ...........................................................................................................................................4
Current Organization Chart..................................................................................................................6
Proposed Organization Chart ..............................................................................................................6
Reforming the Youth Authority...........................................................................................................11
Juvenile Corrections Alternatives: Missouri, Texas and Florida ....................................................13
Leadership Drives Change.................................................................................................................19
Senate Confirmation...........................................................................................................................21

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY

Introduction

U

nder the law, the Governor has the obligation to periodically
examine the organization of all agencies to determine the
changes that are necessary to reduce expenditures, increase
efficiencies and improve the management of public programs. The legal
authority for the reorganization process is established in Article 5,
Section 6 of the Constitution, and detailed in the Government Code.
The statute defines and limits the kinds of changes that can be made
through the reorganization process. Plans, for example can transfer,
consolidate and even abolish functions that “may not be necessary to the
efficient operation of the state government.” But plans cannot, for
example, include agencies “whose primary function is service to the
Legislature or judicial branches of state government or to any agency
that is administered by an elected officer.” The law requires that plans
make provisions for transferring civil service employees, property
records, and fund balances of the agencies affected by a plan.
The law provides for the Governor to pursue those changes through an
accelerated and streamlined legislative process. The reorganization
process calls for the Governor to propose a plan, for the Little Hoover
Commission to review and make an advisory recommendation regarding
the plan, and for the Legislature to either allow the reorganization to go
into effect or to reject it by a majority vote in either house. The box
below contains an excerpt of the reorganization statute.

The Reorganization Statute
Government Code Section 12080.1. The Governor, from time to time, shall examine the
organization of all agencies and shall determine what changes therein are necessary to
accomplish one or more of the following purposes:
(a) To promote the better execution of the laws, the more effective management of the
executive and administrative branch of the state government and of its agencies and functions
and the expeditious administration of the public business;
(b) To reduce expenditures and promote economy to the fullest extent practicable consistent
with the efficient operation of the state government;
(c) To increase the efficiency of the operation of the state government to the fullest extent
practicable;
(d) To group, consolidate and coordinate agencies and functions thereof as nearly as
possible according to major purposes;
(e) To reduce the number of agencies by consolidating those having similar functions under
a single head and to abolish such agencies or functions thereof as may not be necessary for
the efficient operation of the state government;
(f) To eliminate overlapping and duplication of effort.

1

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Governor's Reorganization Plan, Reforming California's Youth and Adult
Correctional System, was submitted to the Commission on
January 6, 2005. Under the reorganization statute, the Governor must
submit the plan to the Commission 30 days prior to submitting it to the
Legislature. The Commission, in turn, must make a recommendation
regarding the plan within 30 days of the plan being submitted to the
Legislature. On February 22, 2005, the Governor submitted the plan for
reforming corrections to the Legislature as Governor's Reorganization
Plan #1.1
In reviewing the plan, the Commission conducted a public hearing on
January 27, 2005, and received oral testimony from more than 30
witnesses. A list of the witnesses is in Appendix B. The Commission
also reviewed written comments submitted by some 50 criminal justice
experts, community-based service providers, former offenders and other
stakeholders. The list of those who submitted written comments is in
Appendix C. Additionally, the Commission relied on seven studies it has
published in the past decade on youth and adult corrections as well as
crime and violence prevention.
This introduction is followed by a summary of the plan, an analysis of
the plan's strengths and weaknesses, the Commission's conclusions, and
recommendations for pursuing additional reform opportunities.

2

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
Governor's Reorganization Plan

Reforming California's Youth & Adult Correctional
Agency
The Governor's Reorganization Plan proposes to transform the Youth and
Adult Correctional Agency and its related departments, boards and one
commission, into a new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In the plan, the administration asserts:
"It is essential to have a unified management structure that improves
accountability, eliminates duplication, generates leverage and shares
best practices across the entire organization."2
Major reforms of the plan include:
q

A stronger chain of command.
The secretary for the new
department would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate and will have authority over all activities in the
department. Line managers would have day-to-day authority in their
areas, but would be accountable to the secretary for their
performance.
A Division of Adult Operations and Division of Youth Operations
would replace the former Department of Corrections and California

Independent Review Panel
In response to the crisis in California's correctional system, Governor Schwarzenegger established the
Independent Review Panel on Corrections, chaired by former Governor Deukmejian. In June 2004,
the panel issued its final report, which included 237 recommendations for improving public safety.
The findings and recommendations from this report provided the genesis for the reorganization plan.
The panel's key findings included:

No Accountability. The Secretary has no control over operations. The 32 prison wardens and
eight juvenile institution superintendents operate independently.

No Uniformity. Critical management and support functions including budgeting, personnel and
training, internal affairs, information technology and health care are decentralized and no uniform
policies govern these functions.

No Transparency. Multiple layers of bureaucracy, culture and a pervasive "code of silence" that
protects wrongdoers insulates the inner workings of the department from public scrutiny.
The panel described the reorganization of the agency as the "linchpin" of the panel's other
recommendations and one that should be given high priority. The plan incorporates many of the
panel's recommendations in the area of organizational change, with some minor variations. The plan
does not, however, embed the panel's central recommendation to establish a Civilian Corrections
Commission.
Source: www.report.cpr.ca.gov/indrpt/corr/execsum/execsumm.htm

3

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Youth Authority.
A Division of Parole Operations would be
established. These new divisions would report to a Chief Deputy
Secretary appointed by the Governor, on the recommendation of the
secretary. The Governor, upon the recommendation of the secretary,
also would appoint prison wardens, who would be exempt from civil
service and subject to removal by the secretary. Warden appointees
would no longer require Senate confirmation.
The reorganization also would create a Division of Community
Partnerships; a Division of Education, Vocations and Offender
Programs; and, a Division of Correctional Health Care Services. The
heads of these divisions would report directly to one chief deputy
secretary. The Prison Industry Authority and the Prison Industry
Authority Board would become part of the Education, Vocations and
Offender Programs division.
q

Consolidated administrative functions. Common management and
administrative functions, such as research and planning, information
technology and labor relations will be consolidated in the Office of the
Secretary, reducing duplication and providing uniformity in policies
across departments and divisions.
The reorganization also
centralizes health care administration for all institutions.

q

The reorganization eliminates the
Board of Prison Terms, Youth Authority Board and Narcotic Addict
Evaluation Authority and transfers their functions to a new Board of
Parole Hearings. The new board would be composed of 17 members
appointed to staggered three-year terms by the Governor and
confirmed by the Senate. The board would perform all of the
functions and procedures currently administered by the three
boards. Additionally, the board would conduct studies to improve
the parole system.

Consolidated parole boards.

On the Web
Governor’s Reorganization Plan, Reforming
the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
http://www.cpr.ca.gov/pdf/GRP2.pdf
Testimony from Little Hoover Commission’s
hearing on January 27, 2005
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/Jan27.html
The Commission’s Report
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report179.html

Coordinated standards setting. Currently
the Board of Corrections develops and enforces
standards for local correctional facilities and
establishes training standards for local law
enforcement. The plan eliminates the Board of
Corrections, and a new Corrections Standards
Authority will assume its functions.
The
Corrections Standards Authority also will
develop,
approve
and
monitor
training
standards for correctional peace officers. The
Correctional Peace Officer Standards and
Training (CPOST) will be eliminated.
q

4

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
q

Important new elements. The reorganization adds new functions
including an Office of Risk Management to permit the department to
identify and respond to potential legal or fiscal risks; Office of Policy,
Planning and Research to enhance management’s ability to
implement evidence-based policies and programs; and, Office of
Information Technology to centralize and modernize the department’s
capacity to use information to guide management decisions.

The charts on the following page depict the existing organizational
structure of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency and the proposed
organizational structure of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

5

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Current Organization – Youth and Adult Correctional Agency

Governor
Prison
Industry Board

Secretary

Prison
Industry
Authority

Department
of
Corrections

Board of
Corrections

California
Youth
Authority

Board of
Prison Terms

Correctional
Peace Officer
Standards &
Training

Narcotic
Addict
Evaluation
Authority

Proposed Organization – Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Governor

Board of
Parole
Hearings

Secretary

Chief Deputy
Secretary

Division of
Youth
Operations

Division of
Adult
Operations

Corrections
Standards
Authority

Chief Deputy
Secretary

Division of
Parole
Operations

Division of
Community
Partnerships

6

Division of
Education,
Vocations, &
Offender
Programs

Division of
Correctional
Health Care
Services

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY

Strengths of the Plan
The Commission identified the following major strengths of the proposed
reorganization based on expert and public testimony from stakeholders
and four examinations the Commission has conducted of the correctional
system in the last decade. The plan:

Seeks to improve the performance of essential public goals. The
plan acknowledges that the system’s current organizational structure –
designed for a smaller and more simple prison system – is inadequate
and not focused on public safety outcomes. Importantly, the stated goal
of the plan is to establish a foundation from which to significantly
improve the performance of correctional programs, a goal which has long
been ignored by the system.
There is concern that because the agency lacks a comprehensive,
integrated data system to effectively manage its efforts, the reforms could
be thwarted. But despite the data challenges, the secretary has directed
the development of interim performance measures using available
information until improved data can be obtained. The agency also is
working at the national level to tap the expertise of researchers and
practitioners in other states, networking and outreach it has not engaged
in for decades.

Embraces evidence-based practices. In its 1998 and 2003 reports on
the correctional system, the Commission recommended that the
Department of Corrections adopt evidence-based practices and
implement them faithfully to improve correctional outcomes.
The
addition of a policy, planning and research function high in the
organization is an important first step to meeting that challenge. It will
be essential that it is effectively staffed and managed to ensure that the
department has the latest information about what works to reduce
recidivism, assess how well programs are implemented and measure
outcomes.

Is supported by strategic planning. The proposal is accompanied by a
strategic plan that includes the development of specific goals and
timelines for implementation. The development of short- and long-term
outcome measures to track progress toward the goals is an exercise
unprecedented in the history of the organization. The result of a year’s
worth of work involving agency staff, outside experts and community
partners, the strategic plan is an important signal about the sincerity of
the reform effort and the capacity of the agency.

7

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Clarifies and expands authority. The plan clarifies and strengthens
the chain of command from the secretary to the prison wardens and
Youth Authority superintendents, who under the current system operate
with little accountability to the secretary or loyalty to the organization.
Wardens and superintendents will report to the secretary through a
division director and chief deputy secretary and will not require Senate
confirmation. The proposed reorganization would give the secretary
necessary authority over all activities in the agency and its subordinate
departments, thereby increasing the ability of the Governor, lawmakers
and the public to hold the secretary accountable for the performance of
correctional programs.
The secretary asserts that a stronger, centralized administration also will
permit him to deploy limited resources where they are most needed to
improve outcomes.
The current organizational structure relies
heavily on separate and independent departments, boards and a
commission, diffusing authority and frustrating attempts by the public
and policymakers to hold anyone accountable for the performance of
correctional programs. The proposed structure would increase
accountability by “flattening” the organization, empowering the secretary
to develop and implement policies agency wide and providing direct
reporting to the secretary from all areas of the organization.

Increases accountability.

Increases consistency and uniformity. The proposed structure would
reduce fragmentation and inconsistency in the way essential
management and support functions are carried out, creating uniformity
of policies and practices in critical areas, including legal affairs, internal
affairs investigations, information technology, labor relations and fiscal
accounting. Similarly, the plan reduces duplication and increases
consistency and uniformity by consolidating parole decisions for adults,
youth and civil addicts in one board, rather than three and consolidates
law enforcement training and standards setting functions in one board
rather than two. Consistency and uniformity could generate improved
outcomes and cost savings.
Centralization of the Office of
Internal Affairs (OIA) and implementation of vertical advocacy – where
one attorney handles the case from beginning to end – in the Office of
Legal Affairs will help the department address inmate abuse by
correctional staff.
The proposal to consolidate and coordinate labor
negotiations and agreements in the centralized Office of Labor Relations
is designed to better manage undue labor influence. Consistent with the

Improves internal accountability.

8

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
recommendation of the Independent Review Panel, the Inspector General
is independent and its reports are public.

Reduces duplication and waste. The proposal to consolidate shared
administrative functions within the Office of the Secretary was lauded as
a way to leverage existing resources and achieve fiscal efficiency.

Elevates rehabilitation. The name proposed for the new department –
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – signals an important,
renewed focus on preparing offenders for return to the community.
Importantly, the plan elevates health care, educational, vocational and
treatment programs, and a new division of community partnerships to a
level equal with custodial functions. These changes are viewed as critical
in positioning the agency to address federal court findings regarding
inmate health and mental health care and high parolee failure rates.

Elevates victims' services. The plan raises the visibility and enhances
the importance of the agency’s role in victim-related services by
consolidating in the Office of the Secretary functions previously provided
by departments and boards. As important as these issues are, this office
also could assume the responsibility to provide timely and accurate
responses to inquiries by the families of inmates regarding injuries or
deaths in custody, medical treatment or changes in facilities or security
status. Secretary Hickman personally assured the Commission that he
would address these issues raised by families of inmates during the
Commission’s public review of the plan.

Adds new, critical functions. The Independent Review Panel found that
the absence of risk-management capabilities in the Department of
Corrections and California Youth Authority exposes the departments to
unnecessary and costly litigation.
The proposed Office of Risk
Management, recommended by the IRP and widely supported, is
designed to proactively identify and respond to policies, practices and
conditions that represent potential legal or fiscal liabilities. Similarly, the
proposed offices of Policy, Planning and Research and Information
Technology are designed to provide management with sorely needed
research and data to drive decision making and facilitate the agency’s
commitment to employ evidence-based correctional practices to improve
outcomes.

9

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

10

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY

Concerns and Opportunities
The secretary and his staff have been applauded by supporters and
critics alike for putting forward a bold plan and long overdue vision for
improving California’s correctional system. At the same time, some
serious concerns were raised. Among them:

Insufficient Focus on Youth
The positioning of the Division of Youth Operations in the proposed
reorganization generated the most concern among individuals and
organizations that advocate for youth
Reforming the Youth Authority
and lawmakers who have scrutinized the
Department of Corrections and Youth
In November 2004, California Youth Authority
Authority.
officials signed a consent decree to reform the youth
authority in response to a lawsuit alleging serious
ongoing problems at CYA facilities.
The CYA has been intensely criticized in
recent years.
The department has
In the decree, the State agreed to provide wards with
adequate and effective care, including improved
experienced an increase in ward
medical and mental health care and educational
suicides; allegations of inappropriate
programs. Officials also agreed to reduce lockdowns
conduct between wards and staff; highly
and the use of force. As part of the agreement, the
publicized incidences of inappropriate
youth authority will be overseen by an appointed
use of force by staff against wards; and,
special master.
inadequate special education, mental
In January 2005, youth authority officials set a
health, sex offender and drug treatment
timeline for providing remedial and interim plans to
the court and the special master to address medical
services. A recent settlement agreement
care, educational programs, mental health care,
in the Farrell v. Allen litigation resulted
disability services, sex offender treatment and ward
in the appointment of a special master to
safety and welfare.
oversee the development of a remedial
CYA officials also agreed to several immediate
plan and the implementation of
changes including implementing an “open
reforms.3
programming” model at two facilities to ensure wards
The CYA is a department within the
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency –
separate from CDC – with a director who
reports to the secretary. The proposed
reorganization would place the CYA
within
the
new
Department
of
Corrections
and
Rehabilitation.
Institutional
functions
would
be
assumed by a Division of Youth
Operations, while all other functions
including parole, programs to prepare
wards for release and management and
support functions would be consolidated

are out of their cells daily for educational, vocational
and treatment programs as well as meals and
recreation, and to extend this model to all facilities by
May 2005.
While the consent decree does not mitigate the
concerns of youth advocates about the new
structure, it could be expected to provide additional
assurances in the interim that the new structure will
not be harmful to youth.
Source: Farrell vs. Allen Consent Decree. November 2004.
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Farrell vs. Allen
Stipulation Regarding California Youth Authority Remedial Efforts.
January 31, 2005. Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda. Prison Law Office. January 31, 2005. Press Release
on Reform of California Youth Authority. www.prisonlaw.com Web
site accessed February 16, 2005.

11

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
with those of CDC. The head of the Division of Youth Operations would
report to a chief deputy who is also responsible for adult institutions and
programs. Among the specific concerns:
q

CYA will be functionally integrated into the adult prison system.
The CDC is responsible for 161,116 inmates and 114,405 parolees.
The Youth Authority is responsible for 3,358 incarcerated wards and
4,007 parolees.4 Critics predict that by “blending and blurring”
youth operations with the more dominating adult system, youth
operations will look even more like an adult correctional system than
it does today, making goals for reform even more difficult to achieve.
The plan does not reflect the efforts of an agency-sponsored juvenile
justice reform group to reevaluate the roles of the CYA and local
communities in providing juvenile justice services, including
realigning parole supervision to counties. It also does not incorporate
language in the Governor’s proposed 2005-06 Budget to reform the
CYA, including incentives to limit the types of offenders that counties
send to the CYA, focusing the State on the most serious juvenile
offenders and those most in need of mental health and sex offender
treatment. Fully developing and implementing the reforms may be
frustrated if research, policy, educational, audit and other functions
are merged with those of the much larger and different adult system.
The placement of the Youth Authority in the organizational chart
separates institutional functions from those of programs to prepare
wards for release and the community partnerships vital to successful
reentry – just as it does for adult offenders. But the Welfare and
Institutions Code clearly states that the goal of the Youth Authority is
the correction and rehabilitation of young offenders.5 The plan,
critics assert, spreads too many critical functions across too many
areas dominated by adult corrections.

q

Moves the State further away from a comprehensive juvenile
justice strategy. Juvenile justice and prevention advocates assert
that a plan to restructure the Youth Authority should include a statelevel agency to coordinate and lead juvenile justice issues, including
prevention opportunities.
It should consider critical state-local
issues related to juvenile justice jurisdiction, facilities and funding
and the need for distinct treatment of juvenile offenders in custody
and on parole.

q

The proposal does not provide for a
comprehensive set of standards and eliminates regular inspections of
CYA facilities by an outside agency – a standard practice in local
juvenile facilities. In the proposed statutory language, the state

Reduces oversight.

12

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
juvenile justice commission and CYA regional oversight bodies are
eliminated.
Some observers have said that the proposed integration of Youth
Authority functions into the larger adult correctional system is so flawed
as to make the entire plan untenable and have urged its rejection.
Alternatives suggested to the Commission include a separate juvenile
justice agency or placement in a human services agency. Placing Youth
Authority functions in the division responsible for programs also was
suggested.

Juvenile Corrections Alternatives: Missouri, Texas and Florida
Many states take a different approach to juvenile corrections than California. Three states highlighted
below offer models that California could draw from to reform its youth correctional system.

Missouri's Department of Youth Services (DYS). Missouri's DYS, within the state's social
services agency, is recognized as a correctional model for youth. The state struggled for decades
with a beleaguered juvenile justice system that incarcerated youth in two large, remote, gender-based
facilities. After successful pilot projects with small correctional programs, Missouri shut down these
facilities and secured smaller sites – abandoned school buildings, large residential homes, a convent
– and redesigned them to house juvenile offenders, the largest of which houses 36 teens. DYS staffs
these facilities with college-educated youth specialists; it offers quality educational programs and
wrap-around case management services for health and mental health care. Additionally, DYS utilizes
community-based partners to monitor and support teens when they leave custody. Missouri now has
a consistently low recidivism rate of 10 percent and spends less on its program than most other
states.

The Texas Youth Commission (TYC). The TYC is a juvenile corrections agency serving violent
and seriously delinquent youths. The commission operates a mix of facilities including secure
facilities, community-based halfway houses and also contracts with private providers for secure and
community-based residential and non-residential services. The TYC also oversees youth offenders
on parole. TYC utilizes a comprehensive rehabilitation program including therapy, education, work
and discipline training. Additionally, the TYC provides intensive treatment for violent offenders and
sex offenders, and youth with substance abuse problems and mental health needs. The state's
Special Needs Diversionary Program targets juvenile offenders with mental health needs by pairing
probation officers with licensed mental health professionals to provide intensive case management.
The goal is to keep these youth living at home and to avoid future involvement with the criminal justice
system. In 2002, less than 10 percent of the youth in the program ended up in an out-of-home
placement and the cost per day was significantly lower than placement in a TYC facility.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Florida's DJJ oversees a full continuum of
crime and violence prevention services to youths, from victims services and prevention programs to
probation, detention and correctional facilities. DJJ annually provides a comprehensive assessment
of juvenile justice services in an outcome report that details recidivism for specific programs. DJJ
utilizes this information to develop a statewide strategy to better address technical violations of
probation, reduce reliance on residential programs and expand community-based services for youth
offenders. In 2004, DJJ launched a pilot program to keep low-risk youth who violate probation at home
instead of being placed in residential facilities. These youth receive intensive in-home support
services through private providers using research-based wrap-around interventions.
Sources: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2004. "State Profiles." Pittsburgh. http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/. Also,
www.dss.mo.gov/dys/, www.tyc.state.tx.us, and www.djj.state.fl.us. Web sites accessed February 3, 2005. Also, Dick Mendel.
Spring 2003. "Small is Beautiful: The Missouri Division of Youth Services. AdvoCasey Volume 5, Number 1. Baltimore, MD.
Annie E. Casey Foundation.

13

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
On the other hand, a well-respected criminologist said she is not
concerned that the CYA will be overshadowed in the proposed
reorganization. She asserts that other states have been able to maintain
effective youth services within similar organizational structures.6
According to the National Center for Juvenile Justice, 11 states allow a
branch of the adult corrections system to operate state juvenile
institutions.7 The reality, she said, is that the current CYA population is
more similar to the low-risk adult population than a typical juvenile
offender population. Seventy-five percent of the institutional population
in the Youth Authority are between 18 and 25 years old.8
The Commission shares the concerns of youth advocates that the needs
of Youth Authority wards and goals for reform of the Youth Authority
could be thwarted by the enormity of the reform challenges of the adult
system. At the same time, the plan has much merit and the potential for
a historic transformation of the fundamentally broken adult correctional
system. The Commission publicly discussed this conundrum with the
secretary. The secretary provided his assurance that if the Commission
recommended in favor of the plan, he would consider the concerns
raised, explore how the plan could be improved and continue efforts to
provide appropriate services to youth.

No Independent Oversight
The Independent Review Panel recommended that a reorganized
correctional department be led by a Civilian Corrections Commission,
which would function as the department’s board of directors. The
commission, the panel said, would bring public scrutiny and a public
voice to the correctional system, making it more transparent to the
public. In testimony to the California Performance Review Commission,
former Governor Deukmejian and the panel’s executive director said that
the agency does not have the capacity to “correct” itself and that without
independent oversight, meaningful reform will not occur. The executive
director reiterated this position to the Little Hoover Commission.
Secretary Hickman has said that the Administration does not believe the
civilian commission is necessary, that the responsibility rests with the
secretary. He said that concerns about public scrutiny are addressed by
the Little Hoover Commission, Bureau of State Audits and Legislature. 9
The Little Hoover Commission, in its reports on the correctional system,
has advocated for an oversight mechanism that includes civilian and
expert representation and has suggested the Board of Corrections
perform that function. The Commission believes that it is in the public
interest and the interest of the new department to have outside,
independent and expert advice and oversight.

14

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
The Commission does not believe that the entity should have governance
authority; that should rest with the secretary. An oversight body should
serve in an advisory capacity and have “teeth” via a public venue to make
the operations of the department transparent to the public and a
reporting function to the Governor and Legislature. Such a mechanism
would help institutionalize the reforms so that they transcend the
leadership styles and ideologies of individual Governors and agency
leaders. As one correctional expert said, with increased power and
authority comes responsibility. At the same time, the performance of the
system becomes more dependent on who holds the leadership position.

custody and program functions.
The proposal
organizationally separates institutional operations from programs and
parole functions, making accountability for offender outcomes more
difficult. As one sheriff pointed out, in jails custody and programs are
delivered vertically, rather than horizontally. Separating custody and
parole functions could thwart the goal of
coordinated, seamless transition of
Reorganization Doesn't Change Culture
inmates back to the community. The IRP
Reorganization alone cannot change the culture of
recommended a regional structure that
an organization – but it can position the organization
integrates custody and parole functions
to address the knowledge, beliefs and behaviors that
vertically. Secretary Hickman said the
define an organization. The culture of the
Department of Corrections has long been recognized
organizational
chart
–
a
matrix
as a primary deterrent to reform. The secretary has
management model – cannot completely
acknowledged the existence of a pervasive “code of
reflect the management structure he
silence” that allows misdeeds to go unreported and
envisions where communication and
unpunished. He has implemented a “zero tolerance”
integration are vertical and horizontal to
policy concerning the code of silence. The
Corrections Independent Review Panel concluded
accomplish system wide goals.
that positive change cannot take place in the
correctional system until the culture is reformed from
May limit health care improvements.
the very top and the code of silence is eliminated.
Two federal courts have held that CDC
The IRP outlined a series of steps to accomplish
those goals.
prisoners are being subjected to cruel
and unusual punishment, in violation of
Senator Jackie Speier said that for meaningful reform
the
eighth
amendment
to
the
– including culture change – to occur, the State’s
memorandum of understanding with the California
Constitution.10 CDC and CYA are under
Correctional Peace Officers Association must be
court supervision to improve health and
rewritten. The contract has been widely criticized for
mental health care to offenders. Critics
providing the union with undue influence over
assert that the plan fails to give the
management prerogatives, including assignment of
supervisory staff, sick leave policy and internal affairs
health care manager adequate authority
investigations. The contract expires in 2006.
by placing the position too low on the
Bifurcates

organizational chart and requiring that
the health care manager report through
a chief deputy secretary who is unlikely
to have a health background. Critics
also assert that the plan fails to
recognize
the
statutorily
distinct

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said an
organization's core values are more important than
structure in defining culture. He said transforming
the organization will require the right vision and
mission and a recognition that core values lead to
learning, leadership and the use of best practices.

15

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
missions of CDC and CYA and the differences between adult and
adolescent medicine.
The larger concern should be the development of a managed care model
to provide quality care and control spiraling costs. Once that function is
established, the agency could revisit the organization chart to ensure
that form does indeed follow function and that the health care manager
has the proper authority.

No chief financial officer. Given the Department of Correction’s history
of poor fiscal management, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in
cost overruns annually, the absence of a Chief Financial Officer to guide
and oversee fiscal policies is a concern. A CFO becomes particularly
important as the new department embarks on technology acquisition and
enhanced inmate programming – efforts that will require estimating the
costs of the reforms, working with the Department of Finance on the
reallocation of existing resources and providing support for additional
funding requests.

Too little focus on re-entry. In 2003, the Commission reported that
California has the second highest parole failure rate in the country.
Sixty-seven percent of California prison commitments are parolees
returned to custody compared to a national average of 35 percent. The
Commission recommended that the State cut costs and improve
outcomes by using alternatives to prison for the large percentage of
parole violators returned to prison for drug use and possession. The
Legislature, in the 2003-04 Budget Act directed the department to
implement a series of reforms, including alternatives to prison, to reduce
the prison population.
Despite Secretary Hickman’s assertion that technical violation and parole
discharge reforms are progressing, the prison population has grown.
Given overcrowding, reducing the prison population is critical to
effectively implementing programs to prepare inmates for release. The
Commission and the Independent Review Panel recommended that the
State shift the responsibility for parolees to communities for certain nonviolent offenders. Neither the reorganization plan nor the strategic plan
address the parole reforms required by the Legislature or the
recommendations for shifting parole to counties. In the strategic plan,
expansions of evidence-based reentry and parole supervision strategies
are not slated not to occur until 2007, but should be accelerated.
The Commission in
2004 reported that despite a five-fold increase in the number
in California prisons over the past two decades, primarily
related offenses, the State has not developed a strategy that

Doesn’t address women offenders.

16

December
of women
for drugeffectively

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
reduces crime among this population. The Commission recommended
that the Department of Corrections appoint a director of women’s
programs and develop a strategic plan for female offenders, consistent
with the overall strategic plan. The Reorganization Plan and Strategic
Plan do not mention California’s 22,000 women offenders.

The cost of reform. The proposal, if enacted, would represent the most
fundamental restructuring and philosophical shift in the State’s
correctional policies in four decades. It would require a substantial, yet
unquantified investment in technology and educational, vocational and
treatment programs alone. Yet the Governor’s proposed 2005-06 Budget
includes a $95 million unallocated reduction in the CDC that the
secretary indicated would result in a 28 percent reduction in
programming. 11 If reducing the number of offenders who return to
prison is the goal, programs to help them succeed cannot be the first to
be cut.
When asked by the Commission whether funding would be forthcoming,
the secretary said that he could not ask for additional resources prior to
obtaining the data and conducting an analysis of where investments
need to be made. He said that he is working with the Department of
Finance to identify and make public the reallocation of existing
resources, where appropriate. But the agency and the Administration
should scrutinize how all resources are being spent – in custody and
program areas – in deciding how resources could be reallocated to fund
reforms.
The Commission commends the secretary for embracing a data-driven
approach to management – one that has been conspicuously absent in
the agency for years. But these reforms will likely require an up-front
investment that will require the Administration and the Legislature to
work closely with the secretary to facilitate cost estimates for technology
and program goals and prioritize their implementation. Technology
acquisition will be critical to improving the management of the new
department, measuring the results of the reforms and modifying their
implementation as necessary. Similarly, the laudable emphasis on
preparing inmates for release and assisting parolees to successfully
reintegrate into their communities will require that programs are
available to those who can benefit from them. Priorities based on the
department's goals for public safety, must be established and supported
by agency leaders, the Governor and the Legislature.

17

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

18

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY

A Critical First Step
Recommendation: The Legislature should permit Governor’s Reorganization
Plan, Reforming California’s Youth and Adult Correctional System, to go into
effect.
Reorganization is a critical step in addressing the myriad of problems
that plague the Department of Corrections, Youth Authority and the
agency’s other subordinate entities. While reorganization alone will not
solve the problems in the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the
internal structure of the agency has long been recognized as the source
of many of the problems and a barrier to timely and effective solutions.
The lack of a unified structure for prison work and education programs
has diminished their effectiveness. The longstanding practice of allowing prisons to operate
Leadership Drives Change
independently has hindered accountability and
Ultimately, success will hinge on the ability of
hampered the standardization of policies,
the secretary and other agency leaders to
contributing to inmate abuse and expensive
translate the vision for the new department
into reality. The secretary must build and
lawsuits. And fragmentation and contracting
sustain the participation and cooperation of
out for inmate health care has resulted in
employees and community partners, and
soaring costs and constitutionally inadequate
develop a performance-based culture.
care.
The Corrections Independent Review
Senior managers with the knowledge and
Panel concluded that to a significant extent the
competencies to accomplish organizational
problems in California’s correctional system
goals must be put in place and leaders for
stem from its structure. The panel described
the future must be grown.
reorganization as the “linchpin” of its other
The Governor and legislative leadership
recommendations and said that it should be
must be equally committed and provide the
necessary political and financial capital to
given high priority.
ensure the success of the reforms.
The plan, while deficient in some areas, offers a
vastly improved organizational structure that
could position the agency to effectively address these fundamental,
persistent problems. The Commission believes that the merits of the
plan considerably outweigh its shortcomings and that its enactment is
an important – if not historic – opportunity that should not be
squandered.
The Legislature should allow the Governor’s Reorganization Plan for
corrections to take effect. The Governor, Legislature and secretary
should subsequently pursue opportunities to further improve the
correctional system through legislation, the budget process or
administrative directive. The secretary should prioritize goals for reform
and develop performance measures to assess progress toward the goals.

19

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

Additional Opportunities for Improvement
Following enactment of the plan, opportunities to further improve the
correctional system in the following areas should be pursued.

1. The secretary should develop a proposal for a
comprehensive, statewide juvenile justice system that
provides an evidence-based continuum of services.
The Governor, in his proposed 2005-06 Budget, asserts that in the next
several months the Administration will continue to work with juvenile
justice stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan to reform
California’s juvenile justice system and redefine the role of the CYA.
Potential policy changes being considered include: shifting responsibility
for supervising youth parolees to the counties; incentives for counties to
limit the type of offenders they send to the State to permit the State to
focus on the most serious offenders; and, evaluating state facility needs.
The secretary should continue to work with stakeholders to address
these and other issues, including:
ü
ü

The need for a statewide strategy for juvenile justice.
The appropriate roles of the State and California counties in
providing juvenile justice services, including whether state juvenile
justice functions should be administered by the proposed state
corrections department, a health and human services department, a
stand alone juvenile justice agency or by counties.
ü The need for a continuum of facilities for youth wards and a stable
source of funding for counties.
ü A mechanism to ensure that juvenile justice services are
comprehensive, evidence-based and well managed.
These efforts should resume immediately and be pursued aggressively.
The secretary should make recommendations to the Governor and
Legislature about how the State’s juvenile justice system should be
organized to improve outcomes.

2. The
Governor
and
Legislature
should
establish
independent, expert oversight of the reforms in the
Reorganization Plan to ensure that they are effectively
implemented, using evidence-based strategies and
performance measures. Oversight could be provided by a
multi-disciplinary panel or a joint legislative committee.
Based on the history of failed reform efforts in the Department of
Corrections and the scale of the currently proposed reforms, it is

20

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
essential that an independent mechanism
be established to guide, oversee, evaluate
and publicly report on the reform efforts.
The body should:
ü
ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Senate Confirmation
In the plan, Senate confirmation would be retained
for the secretary, but eliminated for prison wardens.
The administration explained that the scope of
responsibility and authority exercised by wardens
would be significantly reduced, thereby eliminating
the need for legislative consent. Senators who
testified before the Commission said that they were
not concerned about the proposal to eliminate
confirmation of wardens. A question has been raised
about whether Senate confirmation can be eliminated
through the reorganization process; that issue should
be discussed and if necessary resolved during the
legislative review of this proposal.

Provide advice and oversight.
Include criminal justice experts, local
law
enforcement,
probation,
community-based organizations, the
faith community and general public.
Identify and recommend best practices
and ensure that they are faithfully
replicated.
Contract for independent evaluation of
Under the plan, the Senate would confirm the
the performance of the correctional
directors of the Division of Youth Operations and
Division of Adult Operations, but would not confirm
system and identify evidence-based
the undersecretary and two chief deputies who are in
ways to improve outcomes.
the line of authority between the Senate-confirmed
Work closely with the agency to ensure
secretary and division directors.
the correct use of offender risk and
Given the size and complexity of the department, the
needs assessments and performance
Commission believes the Legislature should have
outcomes.
consent authority for the top four to five appointees in
Review reports of the Inspector
the chain of command who comprise the core
leadership of the department.
General
and
determine
if
the
recommendations
are
being
implemented.
Annually recommend to the Governor and Legislature statutory
changes, budget priorities and resource allocations that would
improve public safety.
Be reviewed by the Legislative Sunset Review Committee in five years.

3. The secretary should assess the effectiveness of all
correctional strategies and reallocate resources from
ineffective efforts to evidence-based reentry strategies that
could reduce the size of the prison population and improve
outcomes for parolees.
The success of efforts to better prepare inmates for release hinges in
large part on the success of parole reforms in reducing the size of the
prison population so that educational, vocational and treatment
programs can be more effectively managed and delivered.
The
implementation of parole reforms to reduce the size of the prison
population and improve efforts to prepare inmates for release to the
community should be a high priority.
The secretary told the Commission that the $95 million unallocated
reduction in the Governor’s proposed 2005-06 Budget for the

21

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Department of Corrections would result in a 28 percent reduction in
programs, despite the purported goal of the plan to refocus the new
department on rehabilitation strategies. The agency assumes that the
cuts can only be taken from inmate programs – rather than also from
custody functions.
The secretary should assess the effectiveness of current custody and
rehabilitation efforts and reallocate resources from ineffective efforts in
all areas of the agency to evidence-based reentry programs.
For
example, it has been estimated that the State could save $151 million in
a year if it implemented a series of graduated sanctions for the large
percentage of parole violators returned to prison for drug use and
possession, including more frequent drug testing, outpatient treatment
and residential treatment. Similarly, if the State reduced the length of
parole revocation sentences for certain offenders from an average of 140
days to 100 days it could save $300 million annually. Experts assert
that neither of these reforms would jeopardize public safety.12

4. Efforts should be made to accelerate the development of a
robust technology system to provide the department with
information to effectively manage its efforts.
The departments in the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency do not have
comprehensive, integrated data systems to manage their correctional
programs. CDC maintains multiple information systems that do not
work together, are two decades old and cannot be cost-effectively
modified to meet current needs.13
The agency needs data to effectively manage the reforms described in the
Reorganization Plan, such as targeting programs to high-risk offenders,
improving inmate health care and implementing evidence-based parole
strategies. The strategic plan calls for implementation of comprehensive
business and offender-based management systems in 2010.
The
Department of Finance and the State’s Chief Information Officer should
assist the secretary to accelerate the technology reforms, including:
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü

Facilitating a thorough analysis of the agency’s technology needs.
Developing reliable cost estimates for the technology reforms.
Identifying barriers to timely acquisition and implementation of the
technology and ways to overcome the barriers.
Identifying systems used by other states that have the capacity to
meet California’s needs.
Informing policymakers about what is required to advance the
implementation of the agency’s technology goals.

22

REFORMING THE YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
5. Related management and support functions could be
clustered in the Office of the Secretary to improve
efficiency.
The Reorganization Plan establishes 12 separate management and
support offices within the Office of the Secretary, each with a senior
manager who would report to the secretary – a structure that could
result in an excessive workload for the secretary. There also is concern
that the reorganization does not include a chief financial officer to
monitor and manage the financial activities of the department.
To address these concerns, related functions could be clustered under a
single senior manager, bringing important focus to core functions. For
example, Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs might be grouped together.
A Chief Financial Officer could be responsible for managing all of the
financial activities of the department.

6. The secretary should appoint a Director of Women’s
Programs to address the needs of the growing population
of women offenders.
Women are the fastest growing portion of the California prison
population, yet the correctional system has not developed a strategy to
reduce recidivism among female offenders. The costs and consequences
of this failure are borne not just by the criminal justice system, but by
the child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice systems as well. A
robust and widely accepted body of evidence exists to support the
efficacy of correctional strategies that are tailored for women offenders.
The secretary should appoint a director of women’s programs to develop
and guide the implementation of an evidence-based correctional strategy
to improve outcomes for women offenders.

23

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

24

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendices & Notes
ü Governor's Reorganization Plan
ü Public Hearing Witnesses and Public Comments
ü List of Submitted Written Comments
ü Senator Charles S. Poochigian Concurrence
ü Senator Liz Figueroa Abstention
ü Notes

25

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

26

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix A
Governor's Reorganization Plan
Reforming California's Youth & Adult Correctional Agency
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
I. SUMMARY
From the 1940s through the 1970s California was the model of an efficient correctional system.
Over the last 25 years the size and needs of the system have grown but the organizational
model has remained the same. Since 1980, the number of inmates has increased 554 percent
and the number of adult correctional institutions has nearly tripled from 12 to 32. Today,
California has the second largest state adult correctional system in the United States with
164,000 inmates (Texas has 167,000 inmates).1 The state also detains 3,500 wards and
monitors 114,000 adult and juvenile parolees, resulting in a total of more than 300,000 cases
across the system.2 Yet the State still operates a system in which heads of individual
correctional institutions have almost complete control over operations. This might have made
sense for a small system with a few prisons, but today it is essential to have a unified
management structure that improves accountability, eliminates duplication, generates leverage
and shares best practices across the entire organization.
To develop a plan for reforming California’s correctional system, the Corrections Independent
Review Panel was established in February 2004. The Panel, headed by former Governor George
Deukmejian and staffed by senior law enforcement and corrections experts, undertook an
extensive investigation of the current system and its problems before proposing a series of
changes. Over the course of four months, the Panel interviewed members of the current
correctional system, met with policymakers, consulted experts, and reviewed numerous reports
on California’s correctional system. In its report, the Panel gave highest priority to the
reorganization of California’s Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, writing:
The system’s organizational structure has not kept pace with the massive growth in
inmate population or with the vast geographical spread of the institutions.3
In line with the Panel’s recommendation to restructure the current system, the following pages
outline a comprehensive reorganization of corrections in California. It is aimed at establishing a
basis from which to deliver significant performance improvement. The reorganization has two
central elements.
First, the Secretary for the newly established Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will
have authority over all activities in the Department. Line managers will continue to have dayto-day authority over operations within their areas, but will be accountable to the Secretary for
their performance.
Second, common functions will be shared and consolidated in the Office of the Secretary. These
functions will include research and planning, risk management, information technology,
27

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
human resource training and development, internal affairs, labor relations, facilities
management, finance and procurement.
Restructuring will establish clear lines of reporting, accountability and responsibility and
performance assessment that will improve services, reduce the likelihood of repeat offenses and
eliminate abuses within the current system. It will centralize services and activities to remove
duplication and leverage the scale of the Department’s $6 billion spending authority, thus
reducing the cost of operations. The reorganization will deliver a safer society at less cost to
the people of California.
II. EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
California’s correctional system is made up of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA)
and seven departments, boards and commissions, the most critical being: the Department of
Corrections, California Youth Authority, Youth Authority Board, Board of Corrections, Board of
Prison Terms and the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority.
The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency was created in 1980. It is led by an Agency Secretary.
who reports to the Governor and has oversight responsibilities but has no direct operational
authority over YACA’s departments, boards and commissions. The Agency Secretary has a staff
of 28.4

The Department of Corrections manages the state’s adult prison and parole systems. It
operates 32 prisons and 38 camps with approximately 164,000 inmates and supervises
another 110,000 adult parolees. The Department has approximately 45,200 employees.5.

28

APPENDICES & NOTES
The California Youth Authority manages the youth facilities and parole system. It operates
eight facilities and three conservation camps housing approximately 4,200 wards and
supervises another 4,200 parolees. The Department has approximately 3,800 employees.6
The Youth Authority Board renders parole decisions on wards committed to the California
Youth Authority. The Board is within the California Youth Authority and has six members,
including the Director of the California Youth Authority, who serves as an ex officio member of
the board. The remaining members are gubernatorial appointees.
The Board of Corrections is responsible for development and enforcement of standards for the
construction and operation of county and city jails and juvenile halls, and for standard-setting
and training of county and city corrections officers. It also administers grants and other
funding programs for construction and operation of county and city corrections programs and
gathers and reports information regarding county and city jails and juvenile correctional
facilities. The board consists of 15 members, including the Secretary of the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency (who serves as its chairperson), the Director of the Department of
Corrections, and the Director of the California Youth Authority.
The Board of Prison Terms conducts parole hearings for inmates sentenced to life terms and
conducts parole revocation hearings for all parolees alleged to have violated parole terms and
conditions. The board also conducts hearings involving sexually violent predators and mentally
disordered offenders and reviews requests for reconsideration of good-time credit denials, to set
parole length, and to process foreign prisoner transfer requests. The Board is comprised of nine
commissioners appointed by the Governor.
The Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority determines suitability for release of individuals
committed into the “civil addict” program — a treatment program for adult offenders whom the
court believes would be best served through this alternative to prison. The program currently
serves approximately 1,500 civil addicts who are housed at the California Rehabilitation Center
and an additional 2,200 parolees. The Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority is composed of
seven members appointed by the Governor.
III. THE CASE FOR REORGANIZATION
The current organization structure, focused around individual operating units, has weakened
responsibility and accountability across the system, leading to costly duplication and failure to
leverage scale. The following examples illustrate these problems, providing the impetus for
organizational change.
The consequence of weakened responsibility and accountability
Under the current system, the Secretary reports to the Governor, but he does not have the
actual power to change the operations of the Department of Corrections and the California
Youth Authority that administer the correctional institutions. As a result, the Governor cannot
truly hold the Secretary accountable for the performance of the correctional system or enact
major reforms in the way prisons are administered. Nor can the Secretary dismiss a warden of

29

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
an institution. Currently the system’s 32 wardens and eight superintendents do not report
directly into the Secretary. Each warden employs different standards and different operating
procedures. This decentralized framework, along with Senate confirmation of wardens, has
helped create a system of operational silos with little accountability or sharing of best practices
outside the facility walls.
Currently, many administrative functions are duplicated throughout both the Department of
Corrections and the California Youth Authority. Often component entities of the existing
departments duplicate other functions or organizational units elsewhere within a department.
For example, the Department of Corrections has a legislative office located within the Field
Operations section of the Parole Operations Branch within the Parole and Community Services
Division. In Support Services, there is also a legislative liaison office. The California Youth
Authority has its own legislative offices, as does the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
In terms of institutional operations, the Department of Corrections regional entities each have
separate health care services and parole services operational entities. There are four layers of
organizational hierarchy between institutional operations and the director’s office. In addition,
there is no central legal services office within the agency. Each department and board has its
own legal counsel and staff attorneys.
This lack of accountability and responsibility from the Secretary across the organization has
also exacerbated failures in line management and officer roles. The Corrections Independent
Review Panel noted,
Layers of bureaucracy between managers and functions blur lines of responsibility.
Accountability is conspicuously absent . . . 7
This is also evident in recent failures of responsibility in the care of wards within the California
Youth Authority. A recent audit by the Office of the Inspector General found 9 percent of wards
at 5 audited facilities spent 23 hours a day in their cells. This was not solely for disciplinary
reasons. For example, at the Herman G. Stark Youth Correction Facility in Chino, 103 wards
were confined because there were not enough teachers to run educational classes.8
In addition, evidence of the current structure’s failure can be found in the rate at which adult
inmates re-offend after being released from prison. Forty-three percent are likely to be back in
prison within one year of their release and more than 60 percent will be back within three
years.9 This is 3 in every 5 prisoners and speaks to a failure of the system to take responsibility
and accountability for the rehabilitation of offenders and provide the training, counseling and
support needed to prevent re-offending.
Inmate incidents have also been on the rise.10 In 1993 there were 6,200 incidents across the
adult corrections system, a rate of 5.7 per 100 inmates. However in 2003 the number of
incidents had almost doubled to 12,000 and inmates were 40 percent more likely to be involved
an incident, with a rate of 8.0 per 100.11 Again, this is indicative of a lack of accountability for
safeguarding the prison population on the part of the corrections system.

30

APPENDICES & NOTES
The consequences of duplication and failure to leverage scale
California spends more than $6 billion on correctional and rehabilitation services every year.
The very size of the amount spent provides the state with an opportunity to leverage scale.
Scale allows the state to negotiate better rates and contract terms in the procurement of goods
and services. Scale also allows the state to reduce the cost of fixed assets by making a one time
purchase and using the same good or service across the state, so sharing the costs widely and
not paying for duplicative systems. Sharing common assets and improving procurement will
both leverage scale and reduce costs, creating a more productive state government.
Information Technology: Currently, each correctional institution has its own information
technology team. There is little consultation or coordination between different institutions on IT
initiatives and systems are either not jointly developed or built to sufficient scale to be used by
the entire system. For example, within the Department of Corrections there are more than 100
employees assigned to the Department’s 32 institutions. However, they each report to their
respective correctional institutions, not the Department’s Information Systems Division. This
impedes the sharing of best practices and development of new, cost-saving initiatives across
the Department and makes the entire system vulnerable to security breaches.12
Consolidating and centralizing all information technology investments within one organization
would ensure a consistent implementation of information technology policies and procedures.
It would also allow for the prioritization of information technology needs and expenditures as
well as the development of agency-wide solutions.
Health Services: The Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority each
maintain their own organizations for providing health services to inmates. These services
include medical, dental, and mental health. The organizations are responsible for selecting
services, managing contracts, and litigating disputes as to legally required care. Despite a two
percent decrease in the prison population between 1999-2000 and 2002-2003, overall health
care expenditures increased from $566 million to $879 million, and pharmaceutical
expenditures increased by 111 percent.13
In 2002, California spent $133 million on
pharmaceuticals while Texas, which has roughly the same prison population, only spent $36
million.14 The cost of health care in the U.S. is rising. However, the current fragmented
organization does not allow the State of California to effectively leverage its scale and deliver
the economies that its spending merits.
Centralizing health care administration for all correctional institutions would allow the
Department to take advantage of its scale in purchasing. It would also allow the Department to
attract top talent and to spread best practices across the correctional system.
Recruitment: The Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority each
maintain their own recruitment and training schemes. However, this fragmented approach is
not proving to be effective. Indeed the California Youth Authority has assigned no staff and
allocated no budget to recruitment for 2004-05.15 This is despite the fact that more than
37percent of current employees are currently eligible for retirement.16 The Department of
Corrections fares little better. It has actually allocated $4.2 million for recruitment.17 However,

31

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
it is still operating with a vacancy rate of nine percent and more than 26 percent of employees
are currently eligible to retire.18
The proposed reorganization will create a central personnel and training office that will work to
share best practices in attracting qualified new employees. Budgets and recruitment staff will
be combined to deliver one clear image of opportunities to potential hires and bring recruitment
expertise together in one place. The flatter overall organizational structure will also reduce the
high demand for managers.
The reorganization will also eliminate the Commission on Correctional Peace Officers
Standards and Training (CPOST), which has been an obstacle to effective training. CPOST was
set up to ensure uniformity by approving training materials. In practice CPOST has often
delayed needed training, rejecting training materials without clear guidance as to what changes
are necessary. The Corrections Independent Review Panel observed, CPOST is "bureaucratic in
its operations, and has become a hindrance to the training of state correctional peace
officers."19
The reorganization will consolidate the different training academies used by the different
departments into a single academy, reducing duplication and leveraging scale and creating a
common body of knowledge for all officers. The standard setting functions of CPOST will be
moved to the new Corrections Standards Authority.
The proposed reorganization is a vital first step. But it will not in itself accomplish an
improvement in performance. Changing the organization will not in itself change the way it
operates. What it will do is set the basis for reform. From here the new Department will be able
to move to deliver changes in processes, policy, technology, capabilities, accountabilities and
culture that will improve overall performance. This is a long journey. It will require significant
investment of time and resources to secure the full performance improvements. However, the
potential prize is significant: improved services to make life safer for the people of California
and at a reduced cost.
IV. THE NEW ORGANIZATION
As a result of the reorganization, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency will become the new
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The new department will have a flatter
organizational structure and a clearly defined command structure to ensure that the top layer
of management has a direct reporting relationship with every aspect of the organization’s
performance. This change is essential to integrate productivity improvements and best
practices into line operations. Consolidation and centralization at the level of the Secretary will
leverage scale, reduce duplication and ultimately reduce the cost of operations.

32

APPENDICES & NOTES
The proposed organizational structure of the new Department is depicted in the following
organization chart::

The Office of the Secretary
Management Goal:
The Secretary will report directly to the Governor and serve as the primary point of
accountability for the management of all correctional and rehabilitation programs. The Office of
the Secretary will consolidate functions that cut across program areas to create a unified,
enterprise-wide approach to policy and operations.
Functions:
The Secretary will fulfill all current Agency Secretary roles. In addition, the Secretary will
advise and assist in the implementation of major policy and program matters and be the
principal communication link between the Governor and the constituent units of the
Department.
The Secretary is a cabinet-level position, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the
Senate.

33

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Crosscutting and coordinating responsibilities will be consolidated in the Office of the
Secretary.
These include:
1. Office of Legislation
The Office of Legislative Affairs will respond to information requests from the
Legislature, analyze federal and state legislation affecting the Department, coordinate
the development of Department-sponsored legislation and monitor legislatively
mandated reports required of the Department.
2. Office of Public Affairs
The Office of Public Affairs will act as the Department’s liaison to employees, the news
media, community groups and other organizations.
3. Office of Legal Affairs
The Office of Legal Affairs will coordinate the Department’s legal activities, provide the
Secretary with legal counsel and review policy drafts.
4. Office of Internal Affairs
Investigations into allegations of serious misconduct by Department staff will be
conducted by the Office of Internal Affairs to ensure uniformity and fairness in the
investigative and discipline process. This Office will coordinate with the Office of Legal
Affair’s attorneys who will serve as legal advocates on behalf of the Department in
employee disciplinary matters. In addition, under the direction of the Office of Internal
Affairs, an investigative team will be assigned to each of the regions in youth and adult
operations to investigate serious use-of-force incidents or other serious allegations of
staff misconduct at youth facilities and adult prisons.
5. Office of Victim and Survivor Services
The Office of Victim and Survivor Services will be responsible for all victim-related
services previously provided by Departments and Boards under the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to: training on
victims’ rights and issues, coordinating notification to victims of the release, death, or
escape of an inmate or ward, notification to victims of parole consideration hearings
and collection of restitution fines from inmates and for forwarding the funds to the
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.
6. Office of Fair Employment Practices
The Office of Fair Employment Practices will be responsible for developing and
implementing Department policy and strategies to prevent discrimination and
retaliation in the workplace. The Office will also respond to complaints of discrimination
and work cooperatively with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

34

APPENDICES & NOTES
7. Office of Administrative Services
The Office of Administrative Services will manage typical administrative functions,
including human resources and training; financial management; business services;
information technology; and physical plant construction and maintenance. Specifically:
The Human Resources Section will be responsible for staff selection and personnel
management. Its high placement in the organizational structure underscores the vital
importance of these functions to department goals. The Section will be responsible for
recruitment, health and safety awareness programs, pre-employment screening
examinations, background checks and other related duties. It will also develop and
coordinate training throughout the Department, including core academies and inservice training. It will also provide management with succession planning to provide a
path for employee career advancement.
The Financial and Physical Resources Section will be responsible for the financial
accountability of departmental operations and for ensuring fiscal responsibility. As
such, it will have responsibility for contract processing and procurement; budget and
accounting management; and facility planning. It will use existing financial
management systems and will develop additional systems as necessary to direct the
development of the budget and monitor its compliance.
8. Office of Information Technology
The Office of Information Technology will centralize information technology policies and
operations and bring about consistency and modernization in the Department’s
information technology capabilities. It will coordinate the Department’s information
technology functions, including customer support, project management and the
development and maintenance of computer applications.
9. Office of Audits and Compliance
The Office of Audits and Compliance will be responsible for conducting internal audits
at the direction of the Secretary to ensure that legal, administrative and operational
policies and directives are properly implemented. The Office of Audits and Compliance
will provide the Secretary with the ability to closely monitor the management and
financial activities of the Department and provide the information needed to implement
necessary corrective action.
10. Office of Labor Relations
This Office will act as the Department’s representative on matters involving
management authority and practices and on employee grievances related to union
contracts. This includes responsibility of all labor relation matters delegated by the
Department of Personnel Administration.
11. Office of Policy, Planning and Research
Filling a critical gap in the existing correctional system, the Office of Policy, Planning
and Research will provide management with the research, data analysis, evaluation,
and assessment necessary for effective planning and decision making. The Office will

35

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
also develop policy for the Department and provide Department management with the
ability to respond to changing conditions.
This office is placed high in the
organizational structure to emphasize the importance of this vital resource.
12. Office of Risk Management:
The Office of Risk Management adds a much-needed function to the correctional system
by identifying practices, policies, and conditions that represent potential legal or fiscal
risks to the Department. The Office will carry out this function in part by reviewing and
analyzing performance reports from each region and making recommendations to
alleviate risk. The Office will also identify trends in inmate/ward/parolee appeals and
grievances to identify issues and patterns to be addressed. In addition, the Office will
include a policy compliance unit to ensure that policies are followed.
The Corrections Standards Authority will report directly to the Secretary. The Divisions of
Adult Operations, Youth Operations, and Parole Operations will report directly to the Secretary
through a Chief Deputy Secretary. The following three additional divisions will report to the
Secretary through a second Chief Deputy Secretary: Division of Community Partnerships;
Division of Education, Vocations and Offender Programs; and the Division of Correctional
Health Care Services. The Office of the Secretary will also provide administrative support to
the independent Board of Parole Hearings, and ensure that it coordinates effectively with the
Divisions of Adult Operations, Youth Operations and Parole Operations.
Board of Parole Hearings
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The management goal of the Board of Parole Hearings is to promote public safety through
parole processes and decisions that are fair. The reorganization will allow the Department to
more closely link parole decisions with its rehabilitation programs. The Board will also promote
efficiency and consistency in parole decisions by consolidating all parole decisions within the
new Board. The Board of Prison Terms, Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority and Youth
Authority Board will be eliminated and their existing procedures and functions will be
transferred to the Board of Parole Hearings.
Transferred Functions:
The Board of Prison Terms now functions as California's adult parole decision-making
authority, which includes parole consideration hearings for all inmates sentenced to life terms
with the possibility of parole. The Youth Authority Board is the decision-making authority for
wards committed to the California Youth Authority. The Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority
evaluates whether certain drug offenders who were civilly committed to the Department of
Corrections and are sufficiently recovered from addiction and are ready for release.
Under the proposed reorganization, these entities will be eliminated; however, their functions
and procedures will be maintained and transferred to the new Board of Parole Hearings. The
Board will be composed of 17 members appointed to staggered three-year terms by the

36

APPENDICES & NOTES
Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Executive Officer of the Board will be appointed
by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Governor. The Board will conduct parole hearings, review
related matters pertaining to inmates and wards, and will conduct studies to improve the
parole system.
Corrections Standards Authority
The Corrections Standards Authority will assume the functions of the Board of Corrections and
the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST), both of which
will be eliminated as a result of this reorganization plan.
The Board of Corrections works with officials in state and local corrections to coordinate efforts
and to establish training standards for local correctional personnel. CPOST is responsible for
developing, approving and monitoring selection and training standards for California's
correctional peace officer apprentices, as well as the training standards for advanced rank-andfile and supervisory state correctional peace officers. The functions of CPOST to oversee peace
officer apprenticeship programs and to encourage career-long education will also be transferred
to the Corrections Standards Authority.
The following operational divisions will report to the Secretary through a Chief Deputy
Secretary:
1. Division of Youth Operations
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The goal of this Division will be to efficiently operate and manage youth facilities and to
rehabilitate youthful offenders. The Division will be more effective at achieving these goals
because it will allow the Secretary to implement reforms throughout youth facilities.
Transferred Functions:
The Division will provide for the secure custody of wards, while providing the environment for
carrying out its statutory mission of providing training, treatment, and rehabilitative services
designed to protect public safety by returning wards to society better equipped to lead lawabiding lives. These functions will be transferred from the California Youth Authority.
2. Division of Adult Operations
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The management goal of this Division will be to effectively operate and manage adult
correctional institutions to confine and rehabilitate offenders.
The Division will have overall responsibility for the line operations at each of the facilities that
house inmates. It is important to note, however, that although prison wardens will continue to

37

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
serve at the institution level, the degree to which these institutional supervisors operate
autonomously will change significantly. In the first place, the new Department installs a
streamlined chain of command that flows directly to the Secretary. Secondly, many of the
responsibilities for programs formerly delegated to wardens, such as health care, risk
management, and personnel services, will no longer be handled at the institutional level.
Health care, education, and vocational training will be provided by the Division of Services and
Programs. These changes will allow the wardens to focus their efforts to inmate supervision.
Because the wardens no longer have such broad program responsibility, their appointments
will no longer be subject to Senate confirmation.
The Division will enhance the ability of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to
fulfill its institutional management responsibilities by placing all institutions under a common
leadership. All correctional institutions will be under the ultimate authority of the Secretary.
The Division will oversee all adult prison operations and hold line managers accountable for
preparing inmates for eventual return to the community.
Transferred Functions:
The Division of Adult Operations will provide for the secure custody of inmates, while providing
the environment for effective programming to improve success upon release on parole. These
functions are now carried out within the Department of Corrections.
3. Division of Parole Operations
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The Office of Parole Operations will supervise inmates and wards who are released on parole,
and will help parolees successfully reintegrate into their communities. The economies of scale
brought about by this consolidation of parole services will allow more effective focus on reentry
programs for the youth and adult parolees, while recognizing the unique needs of each
population.
Transferred Functions:
The parole functions of the Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority will
be transferred to this Division.
The following operational divisions will report to the Secretary through another Chief
Deputy Secretary and relevant functions will be transferred from the Department of
Corrections and the California Youth Authority:

38

APPENDICES & NOTES
1. Division of Health Care Services
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The Division of Health Care Services will oversee the efficient delivery of quality health and
mental health care throughout the Department. The chain of command for medical personnel
will be through this division.

2. Division of Education, Vocations and Offender Programs
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The education, vocational and offender programs branch will house programs designed to
enable offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community. This includes academic
education, vocational training, substance abuse and counseling programs. The Prison Industry
Authority will also be part of this division, integrating the Authority more closely with the rest
of offender programs.
The Prison Industry Authority Board will be retained, but its functions will be changed. It will
continue to hold public forums to review whether proposed changes by the Authority, such as
establishing, expanding, scaling back, or eliminating industrial, agricultural and service
enterprises: (1) will provide diversified work activities and (2) will not displace private
industry. 20
3. Division of Community Partnerships
Management Goal and Responsibilities:
The Division of Community Partnerships will establish, maintain and expand cooperative
agreements with local law enforcement and community-based organizations and other entities
that can aid in the rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates, wards and parolees.
V. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The sheer size and complexity of the correctional system, the critical nature of its mission, and
the severity of the current problems dictate the need for wholesale reform, and that reform
should begin with the system’s reorganization. While the restructuring alone will not produce
the necessary reforms, it will serve as the foundation for cleaning up the prison system, reining
in costs, curbing misconduct, holding correctional administrators accountable for the system’s
performance, and making communities safer by doing more to ensure that inmates and youth
wards leave custody better prepared to function in society.
This proposed reorganization of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency is a strong first step
in making the state government more productive for the people of California. The
reorganization will increase the responsibility and accountability of the current corrections

39

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
system and reduce the cost of operations by removing duplication and leveraging California’s
scale. Based on best practice experiences in other states, eliminating duplication and
leveraging scale could amount to significant savings in operational costs.
A program team will be established as part of the California Performance Review. This program
team will consist of a small number of highly talented individuals committed to facilitating the
reorganization of California state government. The program team will be available to work with
the new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide consultation and advice to the
Department’s implementation team. Updates to the People of California, the Governor, and the
Legislature on the progress of the reorganization will be provided on an on-going basis. The
program team will also compile best practices and lessons learned from this reorganization to
be used by other departments as they engage in their own reorganizations and productivity
improvement initiatives.
The Governor's Reorganization Plan includes a Youth and Adult Correctional Agency Strategic
Plan. The strategic plan is available at http://www.cpr.ca.gov/pdf/GRP2.pdf.
NOTES FROM GOVERNOR'S REORGANIZATION PLAN, REFORMING CALIFORNIA'S
YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONAL AGENCY
1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners under the jurisdiction of State authorities, December
2003.
2. CDC and CYA data, December 29, 2004, State of California.
3. Reforming California’s Youth and Adult Correctional System, Independent Review Panel,
2004, available at http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/indrpt/corr/index.htm.
4. YACA Personnel.
5. State Personnel Board as of 30 June 2004.
6. Ibid.
7. Reforming California’s Youth and Adult Correctional System, Independent Review Panel,
2004, available at http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/indrpt/corr/index.htm, p. 1.
8. California Office of the Inspector General, “Accountability Audit: Review of Audits of the
California Youth Authority 2000-2003,” January 2005,
http://www.oig.ca.gov/pdf/AccountabilityAudit-CYA.pdf.
9. Department of Corrections, Policy and Evaluation Research, March 8, 2004.
10. Incidents include inmate-on-inmate assaults, inmate-on-staff assaults, controlled
substance possession, weapons possession and attempted suicide.
11. Department of Corrections, Offender Information Services from Inmate Incidents 2003,
October 2004.
12. Dan Marshall, Staff Information Systems Analyst, California Department of Corrections,
San Quentin, California.
13. Office of the Inspector General, Survey of Pharmaceutical Expenditures, July 2003, p.3.
14. PowerPoint presentation provided by E. J. Pederson, President, University of Texas Medical
Branch, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, What is Correctional Managed Care?,
May 26, 2004.
15. CYA personnel department.
16. State Personnel Board as of 30 June 2004.
17. CDC personnel department.
18. State Personnel Board as of 30 June 2004.
19. Reforming California’s Youth and Adult Correctional System, Independent Review Panel,
2004, available at http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/indrpt/corr/report/5.htm.
20. See Penal Code § 2808.

40

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix B
Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses
Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing
on the Governor's Reorganization Plan, Reforming California's Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency
January 27, 2005
Elaine M. Howle
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits

The Honorable Lee Baca
Sheriff, County of Los Angeles
Craig Brown
Lobbyist, Robinson & Associates

Soo Kang
Executive Director
Orange County Youth & Family Services

Sue Burrell
Staff Attorney, Youth Law Center

The Honorable Tim Leslie
Member of the California State Assembly

The Honorable Michael S. Carona
Sheriff, Orange County

Nancy Lyerla, RN
California Department of Youth Authority
SEIU Local 1000

Matthew Cate
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General

Linda Mitcham
Victim/Witness Program Manager
Placer County District Attorney's Office

Cindy Fonseca
Prison Educator
California Department of Corrections
SEIU Local 1000

Calvin Remington
Chief Probation Officer
Ventura County

Joseph A. Gunn
Executive Director
Independent Review Panel

The Honorable Gloria Romero
Member of the California State Senate

Roderick Q. Hickman
Agency Secretary
California Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency

The Honorable Jackie Speier
Member of the California State Senate
Don Specter, Director
Prison Law Office

The Honorable Curtis J. Hill
Sheriff-Coroner, San Benito County

David Steinhart, Director
Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program

41

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Witnesses Providing Public Comments at Little Hoover Commission
Public Hearing on the Governor's Reorganization Plan – January 27, 2005
Glenn Backes
Director
Drug Policy Alliance

Everett Red Hodges
President
Violence Research Foundation

Cayenne Bird
Director
United for No Injustice, Oppression or
Neglect (UNION)

Donald A. Miller, M.D., J.D.
Miller Paralegal
Dorsey Nunn
Program Director, Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children and Co-Founder,
All of Us or None of Us

Beverly Bloom, Teacher
Sarah Chappell, MFT, Ph.D.

Sean South
Member
Coalition for Effective Public Safety

Rodney Brooks
Chief of Staff to Alameda County Supervisor
Keith Carson

Pastor Bill Woodard
President & CEO
Unity in the Community

Susan Burton
Executive Director
A New Way of Life

Bill Lane
Educational Consultant

James Harris
Chair
Southwest Neighborhood Council

42

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix C
List of Written Comments to Little Hoover Commission
Bob Kenagy

Cindy Marie Absey
Victim/Witness Director
San Luis Obispo County
District Attorney's Office

Joanne McCarthy
Donald A. Miller, M.D., J.D.
Miller Paralegal

Nancy Ayana

Gary P. Miller

Karla Bean

Karen Morrissett

Kathi Bevan

Paul Mullinger

David Bittner

Dorsey E. Nunn
Program Director, Legal Service for Children

Linda Braun, Ph.D.
Matson Breakey

Caroline Nye

Jacqueline Catala

Brian Piper

Doug Chiappetta, Lobbyist
Union of American Physicians and Dentists

Wayne Powers
Charles Rand

Lucy Cole

James C. Rego

Mitzi Copenhaver

James Rowland, Former Director California
Department of Correction and California
Youth Authority

Lance Corcoran, Executive Vice President
California Correctional Peace Officers
Association

Linda Sereda

Francis Courser

Service Employees International Union,
Local 1000

Thomas Current
Steve Daniel

Sean South
Coalition for Effective Public Safety

Eugenia Dillard

Lara Stemple, Executive Director
Stop Prisoner Rape

Judith M. Duckhorn
Linda Evans, Organizer
All of Us or None

Grover Trask
District Attorney, County of Riverside

Lynn Harrill

Sterling Watkins

Don Harris

Keith Wattley, Staff Attorney
Prison Law Office

Gretchen Heidemann, MSW
A New Way of Life

Carl Watts

Everett Red Hodges, President
Violence Research Foundation

Nicole Wheldon

Terri Kan

Connie Williams

Mike Kaplan
Advisory Board Member
Second Chance Program

George Williams
Pastor Bill Woodard, President & CEO
Unity in the Community

J. Clark Kelso
California Chief Information Officer

Dr. Norman Zucker

43

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

44

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix D
Senator Charles S. Poochigian Concurrence

February 23, 2005

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
The Honorable Don Perata
President pro Tempore of the Senate
and members of the Senate

The Honorable Dick Ackerman
Senate Republican Leader

The Honorable Fabian Núnez
Speaker of the Assembly
and members of the Assembly

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
Assembly Republican Leader

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger and members of the Legislature:
I join with my fellow Commission members in recommending that the Legislature permit the
Governor’s plan to reorganize the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency to go into effect.
The focus of the Governor’s reorganization plan and the report of the Little Hoover Commission
are changes proposed to address shortcomings within the existing correctional structure. It is
implicit in this effort, and essential to me, that it be made express, that the primary function of
corrections continues to be the protection of the public and that, in many cases, that function that
can be achieved only through incarceration. I agree that the objectives of public protection
through incarceration and treatment of offenders with rehabilitative capacity are compatible.
However, caution must be exercised to ensure that public safety is not compromised in pursuit of
fiscal efficiency.
A reading of the commission report reflects the fact that members recognize that the more
perplexing problems facing corrections will be resistant to change. Given the complexity of the
45

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
reorganization plan itself and the wide range of strategic and philosophical implications for the
future, the Commission’s report can be characterized as a summary of the positive responses and
concerns most consistently expressed by its members. The diversity of member perspectives
makes unanimity on every issue within the plan almost impossible. Nonetheless, I concur that
the structural reorganization proposal, while not perfect, is a major step forward for California’s
correction system.
I agree with particularity with the assessment that “reorganization is a crucial step in addressing
the myriad of problems that plague the Department of Corrections, Youth Authority and the
agency’s other subordinate entities. While reorganization will not solve the problems in the
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the internal structure of the agency has long been
recognized as the source of many of the problems and a barrier to timely and effective
solutions.” Moreover, “the plan, while deficient in some areas, offers a vastly improved
organization structure that could position the agency to effectively address these fundamental,
persistent problems.”
For the foregoing reasons the Governor’s plan to reorganize the Youth and Adult Correctional
Agency presents as opportunity that should be pursued. There is simply no evidence that
systemic deficiencies within corrections will improve absent structural reform.
Sincerely,

Charles S. Poochigian

46

APPENDICES & NOTES

Appendix E
OFFICE OF SENATOR LIZ FIGUEROA
February 23, 2005
Michael Alpert, Chair
Little Hoover Commission
925 L Street, Suite 805
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Chairman Alpert,
I am writing to clarify my position for the record regarding the report and recommendations of
the Little Hoover Commission on the Governor’s Reorganization Proposal #2 – Reforming
California’s Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
GRP #2 promises a great improvement over the current structure, and I congratulate the
Governor for his leadership on this important issue. However, I remain deeply concerned with
two aspects of the plan and those concerns prompted me to refrain from joining my fellow
commissioners in recommending that the Legislature adopt it as it is.
First, I worry that by replacing the California Youth Authority with a “Division of Youth
Operations” in a new Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the different needs and
objectives of juvenile justice will be overwhelmed by the much larger adult correctional system.
Second, under the plain text of this plan, wardens might still wield enormous discretionary power
over inmates. I am not prepared to endorse eliminating Senate confirmation of wardens until I
know with far more specificity than has been provided to me at this time what discretionary
powers wardens will or will not have under the GRP. Additionally, there are legal questions
about whether eliminating Senate confirmation of wardens may legally be accomplished through
a reorganization process. I fear that this one issue could cause a delay in implementing the rest
of the proposal, if this issue is litigated.
The nature of the reorganization process means that I cannot ask for amendments. I feel I must
vote on the basis of what is before me, no more or less. My experience with term limits has
taught me to be wary when someone asks for my vote now on the promise of a future fix.
Institutional memory in Sacramento is now almost a contradiction in terms.
Likewise, the Consent Decree currently in force will not always be in force, and Secretary
Hickman will not always be the Secretary. Yet, the structure in GRP#2 will endure beyond both
of them. For this reason too I do not feel I can vote to recommend this GRP to my colleagues in
the Legislature on the bases of current but temporary court intervention or promises of future
refinements or clarifications as yet unseen.

47

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION
Rather than recommend that the Legislature vote for a plan that I believe has identified flaws, I
would have preferred that the Governor withdraw this proposal, and quickly submit a new
proposal that retains an independent juvenile corrections department separate from adult
corrections, and that retains Senate confirmation of wardens. Given that no new analysis would
be necessary, this proposal could have been rapidly considered and approved by the
Commission, without substantive qualification. It would have received my vote.
I was pleased that the report and recommendation was amended to incorporate a review of the
reorganization after a year’s time, with special emphasis on youth corrections. I believe,
however, that this future review is an acknowledgement that there is discomfort about the plan as
it is now, where its treatment of children is concerned.
I chose not to oppose the recommendation. I abstained with the hope that the Governor will
work with the Legislature in crafting a bill that addresses and fixes the problems I and the
Commission have identified. At the end of the day, what matters is not whether our corrections
system is reformed through a bill or through a reorganization process. What matters is that the
reform be the right reform, for our State and for our children.
Sincerely,

Liz Figueroa
Senator, 10th District

48

APPENDICES & NOTES

Notes
1.

On January 6, 2005, Governor's Reorganization Plan #2, Reforming California's Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency was submitted to the Commission as Governor's
Reorganization Plan #2. Also on January 6, 2005, Governor's Reorganization Plan #1,
Reforming California's Boards and Commissions was submitted to the Commission. On
February 17, 2005, Governor's Reorganization Plan #1, Reforming California's Boards
and Commissions was withdrawn. On February 22, the administration submitted the
plan to reform corrections to the Legislature as Governor's Reorganization Plan #1,
Reforming California's Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.

2.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. January 6, 2005. "Governor's Reorganization Plan,
Reforming California's Youth and Adult Correctional Agency." p. 1. Sacramento, CA.

3.

Margaret Farrell, Plaintiff, v. Walter Allen III, Director, California Youth Authority,
Defendant. No. RG 03079344. Consent Decree. Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda.

4.

California Department of Corrections. February 3, 2005. "Monthly Report of Population
as of midnight January 31, 2005. Sacramento, CA. Also, Julio Calderon, Information
Officer, California Youth Authority. February 8, 2005. Written communication.

5.

Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1700.

6.

Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., Professor, Criminology, Law and Society, School of Social Ecology,
University of California, Irvine. January 14, 2005. Personal communication.

7.

Sue Burrell, Staff Attorney, Youth Law Center. January 27, 2005. Written testimony to
the Commission.

8.

California Youth Authority. "Characteristics of the CYA Population 2002." Sacramento,
CA.

9.

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
January 7, 2005. Press briefing conference call.

10.

Donald Specter, Director, Prison Law Office. January 27, 2005. Written testimony to the
Commission.

11.

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.
January 27, 2005. Testimony to the Commission.

12.

Little Hoover Commission. November 2003. "Back to the Community: Safe & Sound
Parole Policies." Sacramento, CA. Citing Michael P. Jacobson, Ph.D., Professor, John
Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York. January 23, 2003. Testimony to the
Commission.

13.

Little Hoover Commission. November 2003. "Back to the Community: Safe & Sound
Parole Policies." Sacramento, CA. Citing Christy Quinlan, Chief Information Officer and
Wendy Still, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Corrections. August 6, 2003. Written
testimony to the California Assembly Select Committee on Prison Construction and
Operations.

49

LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION

50