Probation Office Warns of Costs of New Juvenile Crime Measure

Despite Ventura County’s financial troubles, probation officials say they may have to ask for additional funding to enforce provisions of a tough new anti-crime initiative.

Proposition 21, approved by California voters earlier this month, overhauls the state’s juvenile justice system to crack down on crime-prone teens. But it provides no funding for the agencies responsible for keeping them in line.

Locally, the burden is expected to fall hardest on the county’s probation agency, which must now assume new duties and supervise more juvenile offenders for longer periods.

Those mandates come at a time when many probation officers are struggling to manage caseloads swollen by hard-core felons and domestic batterers.

“There are other areas besides juveniles that need our attention,” county probation chief Cal Remington said. “That is where it gets tough.”

Specifically, Proposition 21 does the following:

* Gives prosecutors the authority to decide whether teenagers as young as 14 should be tried as adults for serious crimes.

* Increases penalties for gang-related offenses.

* Eliminates the so-called informal probation system used to handle most juveniles who commit felonies, and replaces it with a mandatory three-year probation program.

It is the latter provision that probation officials fear could have the greatest impact on their workload. There are now between 200 and 250 youths on informal probation, officials said.

“We are going to have to supervise those front-end kids at a higher level for a longer period of time,” Remington said.

Previously, about 75% of juvenile cases were handled informally by probation officers who placed errant teenagers on six-month contracts. Juveniles who broke contracts went to court, and those who didn’t walked away without a blight on their record.

But now, informal probation has been replaced with a mandatory 36-month probation requirement for felony offenses, which prosecutors believe will send a firm message that criminal conduct will be treated severely.

“We are not going to let you waltz about on informal probation until you pull your first gun,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Miles Weiss, who oversees the district attorney’s juvenile unit.

Prosecutors contend the new approach will result in greater accountability for youths who have strayed toward gangs and criminal activity. They argue the system has been lax on juveniles, who learn to expect minimal consequences for their actions.

To comply with the new mandates, however, Remington said there is a “very real possibility” he will have to go before the Board of Supervisors in coming months to ask for more money to increase his staffing.

It could be a tough sell.

For more than a year, county leaders have grappled with a projected $5-million budget shortfall brought on largely by more than $15.3 million in federal penalties levied against the county for years of improper Medicare billing practices.

Since that time, supervisors have been in no mood to spend any extra money. And county leaders say they will be keeping a close watch on the bottom line if Remington or other law enforcement officials come asking for budget increases.

*

Supervisor Frank Schillo said he would ask Remington and others to prioritize the services they provide to determine whether there are ways to comply with the crime-fighting initiative by cutting fat rather than dipping into county coffers.

“I want to see what’s last on the list of priorities and take a good hard look at some of those things,” Schillo said. “I spend a lot of time every year on the budget trying to find out what game they’re playing and where they’re hiding the money.”

Schillo says he has grown tired of the county having to scrape together the money to carry out state-mandated programs.

If state officials or state voters want to curb juvenile crime, he said, they should also be willing to help pay for programs to bring that about.

“We are in the squeeze,” Schillo said. “I think we have to go to Sacramento and say, ‘Look, the people who voted for you said they want you to do this. It’s time for you to do your part, because we don’t have any way of doing it by ourselves.’ ”

Supervisor Kathy Long agreed that money needed to implement the measure should come out of Sacramento, though she added that potential costs are unknown now and could be manageable.

“We haven’t had any analysis yet,” she said.

Meanwhile, court administrators say it is too soon to determine what effect Proposition 21 may have on the justice system.

Prosecutors predict any future impacts will be minimal on the courts and their own offices. They do not foresee having to hire additional lawyers.

“It gives us tools, but doesn’t create more work,” said Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Frawley, who suggested in future years the county could realize a cost savings if the measure is successful in curbing juvenile crime.

Public Defender Kenneth Clayman expects his office may need to hire additional lawyers or reassign deputies to represent juveniles in cases generated by the measure.

But for him and others in the defense bar, the changes brought by Proposition 21 are troubling not for the work it will create, but for the philosophical shift it represents in how society deals with its troubled youth.

The juvenile justice system was established with the belief that young people who commit crimes can be rehabilitated. In severe cases, such as those involving allegations of murder or rape, judges were given authority to decide when a juvenile should be tried in adult court. Now that has changed.

“There is a lot of misunderstanding about the system,” Clayman said. “Here we have tough judges--more than it has ever been in the history of the judiciary. But somehow the perception lags behind the reality in this area.”

Legal challenges are brewing in response to the measure’s passage this month.

The ACLU is considering such action. Local public defenders and those in neighboring Los Angeles County say they are also exploring ways to fight the measure in court.

“We are very concerned about several aspects of the initiative,” said L.A. County Deputy Public Defender Alex Ricciardulli, who is working on a motion to fight the provision that allows prosecutors to directly file juvenile cases in adult court.

The motion, which would be used on a case-by-case basis, will ask judges to return certain cases to juvenile court in the interest of justice, Ricciardulli said.

Similar challenges were brought six years ago in response to the three-strikes law, which mandated lengthy sentences for repeat offenders. The law was modified by the California Supreme Court in 1996, giving judges discretion to overlook prior convictions and hand down less severe penalties.

“The present situation is very similar,” Ricciardulli said. “You have an initiative that is taking power away from judges. . . We are probably going to fight that out until the Supreme Court decides one way or another.”

Clayman said his office is also exploring ways to attack certain aspects of the initiative. “We are trying to be realists,” he said, noting that in the past challenges against other anti-crime initiatives have been unsuccessful.

*

Indeed, prosecutors believe Proposition 21 stands on solid legal footing and can withstand any challenges.

Moreover, they argue, the measure was approved by two-thirds of California voters who strongly indicated at the polls they are fed up with juvenile and gang-related crime.

“It gives us a chance to deal more aggressively with the people who were coming into the system anyway,” Frawley said. “Frankly, we needed it.”

Authorities say juvenile crime has been on the rise. Critics say it has declined recently and question why such an initiative is needed when crime rates just hit a 25-year low.

Laurie Levenson, Loyola Law School associate dean, has a simple answer. Put an anti-crime initiative on the ballot, and California voters will check the box, she said.

“Frankly, I don’t even think people knew what they were voting for,” she said. “It taps right into the fear mentality. I doubt that the public has thought through the ramifications.”

*

Times staff writer Fred Alvarez contributed to this story.