June 30, 2010
DJJ’s Right-Sizing Rollercoaster
Fasten your seatbelts, you're in for a bumpy ride!
By Don Benegas, Supervising Field Rep, CCPOA Southern Office
As any Bargaining Unit Six employee in CDCR's Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) will tell you, the experience of enduring DJJ's down-sizing -- an action that management insists on calling “right-sizing” to describe the structural, operational, and economic overhaul of the entire Department -- truly has been a test of patience for most of the past year, and especially in the face of other uncertainties. The following is provided as an update to CCPOA's negotiations with the state on the status of right-sizing in DJJ.
Although the ever-present rumor mill on this topic seemed to peak around the early months of 2009 regarding the fate of DJJ, it was not until last August that CCPOA finally received official notices describing several major policy decisions, most notably right-sizing and an institution closure that both the Department of Personnel Administration and DJJ management began to implement in the ensuing weeks and months, all with serious implications falling on CCPOA's membership.
In conjunction with the state's official notice last year regarding DJJ's decision to “re-purpose” (read: close) the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility, DJJ management had previously hinted that it would carry out new right-sizing initiatives at the five remaining facilities -- PRESTON, CHAD, O.H. CLOSE, VENTURA, and SYCRCC -- relating to BU6 reductions in security supervision and treatment team staffing patterns, as well as counselor workload increases.
In addition, two precursors had emerged to create the conditions that made right-sizing an increasingly attractive decision for DJJ's leadership. First, the mounting financial and political costs of prolonged litigation in the Farrell v. Cate lawsuit, coupled with growing public criticism over the annual budgetary costs associated with operating DJJ, became significant and inescapable realities within DJJ.
Second, the state Legislature's reaction to public demands for DJJ's accountability of its out-of-control annual spending on the ward population in DJJ resulted in an ultimatum: Either rein in costs quickly by reducing the current level of funding from $250,000 per ward per year to an acceptable amount, or risk virtual elimination of DJJ through public policy reforms. So, DJJ management chose the former option, which hastened the move to expedite implementation of the state's right-sizing initiative.
A separate note that added to the situation for DJJ last summer was the major inmate riot at CIM -- which is located next door to the Stark facility in Chino -- that caused havoc on CIM's Reception Center West facility with the near total destruction of several housing units, rendering it uninhabitable as a secure correctional housing environment.
Soon thereafter, and either willingly or unwillingly (depending on whom you ask), DJJ was called upon to consider relinquishing its operation of Stark, thereby facilitating CIM's immediate need to house hundreds of its temporarily displaced inmates at the facility. So, with DJJ's announcement to close Stark last August, the state's right-sizing plan gained momentum within DJJ.
The Stark closure and right-sizing decisions led to hundreds of BU6 staff receiving the designation “surplus employee,” which in turn made them subject to involuntary job transfers and the very real possibility of layoffs. However, the adoption of a stopgap measure, whereby the vast majority of surplus DJJ staff were offered and accepted “comparable” BU6 job vacancies in CDCR's Adult Division (upon completion of a transitional academy) proved to be helpful. In fact, the comparable jobs option had a collective effect on our members, as they were able to avoid layoffs that may have otherwise occurred. Since then, and with layoffs largely a resolved issue in DJJ for now, CCPOA has shifted its focus to the remaining matters of safety, security, staffing, and workload that remain unsettled between CCPOA and the state.
With the above events in mind, it might be somewhat of a surprise to those who remain working for DJJ that the impact negotiations between CCPOA and the state (both DPA and DJJ management) that began last October, are not yet concluded. Although numerous bargaining sessions have occurred, the parties have not yet reached anything close to an agreement on the issues and concerns that separate us. While there are several reasons why our bargaining table on this subject remains ongoing and unresolved, the most prevalent issue has been dilatory conduct on the part of DPA by refusing to respond timely to the union with their dates of availability to conduct negotiations. This recurring behavior on the state's part has led to many unnecessary delays and a protracted negotiations process, to say the least.
In fact, the process has been much like a bumpy roller coaster ride -- without the usual frivolity and excitement. For example, each of the five remaining DJJ facilities are currently in various stages of implementing lodge and living unit closures or consolidations. Reports from our local chapter representatives, as well as our field representatives, also indicate that local DJJ managers at the institution level are making other operational and/or staffing changes that do not appear related to right-sizing at all -- at least to the extent that justifications for such changes cannot be found in DJJ's right-sizing “business rules” document.
Seeing these conditions unfold without the benefit of local negotiations to discuss and resolve site-specific issues, CCPOA has objected and argued many times with the state over these unilateral moves -- meaning prior to the conclusions of negotiations -- that undermine the integrity of the impact-bargaining process.
As has been the union's experience many times in the past, statewide negotiations tables involving the implementation of new programs of this nature and scope are best handled and resolved through local negotiations, which are then codified as part of a master agreement. To that end, CCPOA has repeatedly advocated to permit local negotiations to proceed in the same manner as we have done in the past; however, our efforts to maximize union representation at the local chapter level have so far fallen on deaf ears with the state of California, and DPA in particular. As one would expect, the state has not provided any reasonable rationale for its refusal to delegate the right-sizing implementation to the locals.
This right-sizing roller coaster ride with the state isn't over -- and it promises to remain a bumpy one. Worse, if the state gets its way with the safety and security flaws we have identified in its business rules document -- and in spite of our serious concerns with unsafe staffing and unrealistic workload demands -- it is very possible the ride could prove to be a dangerous one for our members in DJJ. While we are hopeful we'll reach an amicable accord with the state, we will remain steadfast in refusing to compromise the safety and security of our members in the process.
For now, the fight continues.
