Cya
March 2, 2010
Camarillo gets more offenders as CYA closes other centers
The number of offenders at the California Youth Authority’s Camarillo detention center has more than doubled in recent months as the state’s largest juvenile prison closed and the Division of Juvenile Justice was restructured, corrections officials said.
Nearly 380 wards were being held last week in Camarillo, compared with 176 when authorities announced in August that the Herman G. Stark facility in Chino would close, officials said. Chino officially closed last week, making Camarillo and Norwalk the only remaining juvenile prison sites in Southern California.
“We made a very conscious effort to keep the majority of the youth who were in Stark in Southern California so they would have access to their families,” said Bill Sessa, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation...
LINK - VCStar.com
February 3, 2010
Accountability Audit Review of 2000-2003 Audits for CYA
From the Executive Summary of the OIG's report:
In the past four years, the Office of the Inspector General has performed nine audits identifying deficiencies in the institutions and programs of the California Youth Authority and has issued 241 recommendations to address the problems. The Youth Authority agreed with nearly all the recommendations at the time the audits were issued and promised to fix the deficiencies. The Accountability Audit presented here determined that 57 percent of the previous recommendations have been fully or substantially implemented, but additional progress is needed. Many of the deficiencies that have not been corrected are central to the Youth Authority's core mission of rehabilitating the young men and women entrusted to its care. For example, my office found that some wards are still confined to cells 23 hours per day with little access to the education and counseling services that are so critical to rehabilitation efforts.
February 1, 2004
Review: Providing for Housing, CYA Wards
Review of the Implementation of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1732.8 for Housing California Youth Authority Wards in Department of Correction - February 21, 2003 - This report presents the results of a review conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the implementation by the California Youth Authority and the Youthful Offender Parole Board of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 1732.8 (Senate Bill, 768, Chapter 476, McPherson, Statutes of 2001). The statute, which allows CYA wards to consent to be confined in the Department of Corrections facilities, became law on January 1, 2002. Wards covered by the statute are termed "dual commitment"wards. The review was conducted at the request of Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on the California Correctional System in response to a letter from a CYA dual commitment ward.
July 1, 2003
Management Audit: Office of Internal Audits CYA
From the Introduction section of the OIG's report:
This report presents the results of a management audit of the Office of Internal Audits of the California Youth Authority, conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. The audit, which was performed under the Inspector General's oversight responsibilities under California Penal Code Section 6126, examined the management practices and administrative procedures of the Office of Internal Audits. The audit was conducted from January 2003 through March 2003. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the management practices and administrative procedures of the Office of Internal Audits are being carried out in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The audit also assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of the Office of Internal Audits in helping to fulfill the mission and responsibilities of the California Youth Authority and measured the performance of the Office of Internal Audits according to professional internal auditing standards.
December 1, 2002
Review of the Process Used by CYA and YOPB to Establish Ward Program Requirements
This report presents the results of a review by the Office of the Inspector General of the process used by the California Youth Authority and the Youthful Offender Parole Board to establish program requirements for California Youth Authority wards. The review grew out of a request from Senator John Burton, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, on March 15, 2002 asking for information about what programs the Youthful Offender Parole Board may require of wards committed to the California Youth Authority and how the California Youth Authority is delivering the programs. In the course of responding to Senator Burton's questions, the Office of the Inspector General became aware of a number of issues relating to the process by which the California Youth Authority and the Youthful Offender Parole Board decide what treatment programs wards must complete before parole that appeared to merit additional view.
October 12, 1999
Success for Supervisor Parity - AB 743
October 12, 1999
RE: Success for Supervisor Parity - AB 743
Dear Mr. Novey:
I am pleased to inform you that Governor Davis has signed Assembly Bill 743.
AB 743, which I authored, sets a policy in statute mandating that supervisors in the Department of Corrections, Youth Authority, Highway Patrol, and California Department of Forestry receive salary and benefits that are at least generally the economic equivalent to the salary and benefits granted to the employees they supervise. Within your organization, this means that correctional supervisors will be direct beneficiaries of CCPOA efforts on behalf of rank and file in negotiations or in any legislative matters affecting salary and/or benefits. In future years, this means no compaction of wages or benefits.
I was distressed to learn that supervisors, especially in the CDC and CYA, have suffered under "compaction" for so long. As you are aware, supervisors do not have collective bargaining in which to resolve the inequity. Instead, they have a meet and confer process that does not allow for equal participation and essentially confines supervisors to whatever package they are offered. Unfortunately, the State of California has failed to treat supervisors with parity to rank and file employees with whom they have negotiated improved contracts over the years. Recognizing the potential recruitment and retention issues and the lack of an equivalent bargaining process, legislation was the best means of correcting the inequity. Therefore, AB 743 applies business sensibility to the departments involved by saying that the State of California will provide for supervisors as it does for line officers. CCPOA sponsorship and work in support of AB 743 was essential to break the cycle of compaction.
Obviously, supervisors in safety positions, such as correctional sergeants, lieutenants, and their counterparts in the Youth Authority, are required to make split second decisions, under enormous pressure, that may have consequence to life and limb. Such responsibility should be recompensed accordingly. Moreover, there is a basic management principle that applies in both the private and public sector and it says that you should at least treat your supervisors equal to the rank and file employees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Success for Supervisor Parity -- AB 743
October 12, 1999
Page 2
CCPOA provides outstanding representation for your supervisors, as demonstrated by AB 743. Likewise, the Association ably balances its representation of supervisors with advocacy on behalf of rank and file officers. As a member of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, I have worked with CCPOA on a number of legislative measures and have always been impressed by the thorough, professional, and, most importantly, effective representation provided by the Association.
I have heard that another group has expressed interest in representing correctional supervisors. While I can only comment on representation witnessed and reputation of the CCPOA around the Capitol, I once again emphasize the commitment and effectiveness of the Association to bettering service for all corrections officers. Your sponsorship of AB 743 was certainly a testimonial to that service.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
FRED KEELEY, Speaker pro Term
California State Assembly
BILL NUMBER: AB 743
CHAPTERED BILL TEXT - CHAPTER 792
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 10, 1999
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 7, 1999
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 10, 1999
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 8, 1999
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 16, 1999
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 28, 1999
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 13, 1999
INTRODUCED BY: Assembly Member Keeley
FEBRUARY 24, 1999
An act to add Section 19849.18 to the Government Code, relating to state employees, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 743, Keeley. State employment: supervisors.
Under existing law, supervisory employees have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of supervisory organizations of their own choosing for the purposes of representation on all matters of supervisory employer-employee relations.
This bill would provide that supervisors of state employees represented by State Bargaining Unit 5, 6, or 8 shall receive salary and benefits changes that are at least generally the economic equivalent to the salary and benefits granted to employees they supervise. The bill would require that the determination of the specific benefits that supervisors of state employees represented by State Bargaining Unit 5, 6, or 8 shall receive be made through a meet and confer process.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 19849.18 is added to the Government Code to read:
19849.18. Supervisors of state employees represented by State Bargaining Unit 5, 6, or 8 shall receive salary and benefits changes that are at least generally equivalent to the salary and benefits granted to employees they supervise. For purposes of this section, "salary" means base pay and shall not be construed to include such forms of compensation as overtime. The benefit package shall be the economic equivalent, but the benefits need not be identical. The determination of the specific benefits that supervisors of state employees represented by State Bargaining Unit 5, 6, or 8 shall receive shall be made through a meet and confer process as defined in Section 3533.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order for the provisions of this act to be applicable as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
August 1, 1998
Early Intervention Program - CDC, CYA and Dept of Mental Health
.jpg)
From the Introduction section of the Auditor's report: This is the second time we have reviewed a report the CDC and the CYA have prepared on the impact of early intervention. In July 1992, we cautioned readers to be wary of the results of a similar report. These two attempts to measure the effectiveness of early intervention have therefore been inconclusive. In view of this, it would be imprudent for the Legislature or the CDC and the CYA to rely on these reports in deciding the future of the Early Intervention Program....
August 1, 1998
Early Intervention Program - CDC, CYA and Dept of Mental Health
.jpg)
This is the second time we have reviewed a report the CDC and the CYA have prepared on the impact of early intervention. In July 1992, we cautioned readers to be wary of the results of a similar report. These two attempts to measure the effectiveness of early intervention have therefore been inconclusive. In view of this, it would be imprudent for the Legislature or the CDC and the CYA to rely on these reports in deciding the future of the Early Intervention Program....
August 1, 1998
Early Intervention Program - CDC, CYA and Dept of Mental Health
From the Introduction section of the Auditor's report:
This is the second time we have reviewed a report the CDC and the CYA have prepared on the impact of early intervention. In July 1992, we cautioned readers to be wary of the results of a similar report. These two attempts to measure the effectiveness of early intervention have therefore been inconclusive. In view of this, it would be imprudent for the Legislature or the CDC and the CYA to rely on these reports in deciding the future of the Early Intervention Program....
