BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 2 3 5 AB 2350 (Hill) 0 As Amended April 12, 2010 Hearing date: June 15, 2010 Welfare and Institutions Code AA:dl JUVENILE JUSTICE: STATUS OFFENDERS HISTORY Source: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Prior Legislation: AB 1053 (Solorio) - Ch. 268, Stats. 2009 Support: California District Attorneys Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local 685 Opposition:None known Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 72 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD CALIFORNIA LAW BE REVISED TO ENSURE THAT JUVENILE STATUS OFFENDERS CANNOT BE HELD IN CUSTODY FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE JUVENILE COMPACT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT, AS SPECIFIED? (More) AB 2350 (Hill) PageB PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide that status offenders cannot be held in custody for more than 24 hours except pursuant to the Interstate Juvenile Compact, as specified, to assure compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Current law generally prescribes under what circumstances and for how long a minor can be detained in any jail, lockup, juvenile hall, or other secure facility, who is taken into custody solely upon the ground that he or she is a "status" offender - that is, a minor who has engaged in prohibited conduct that is not a crime, as specified.<1> (Welfare and Institutions Code 207.) Current law provides that a minor taken into custody upon the ground that he or she is a status offender "may be held in a secure facility, other than a facility in which adults are held --------------------------- <1> Welfare and Institutions Code section 601 provides in pertinent part: "(a) Any person under the age of 18 years who persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian, or who is beyond the control of that person, or who is under the age of 18 years when he or she violated any ordinance of any city or county of this state establishing a curfew based solely on age is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. (b) If a minor has four or more truancies within one school year . . . or a school attendance review board or probation officer determines that the available public and private services are insufficient or inappropriate to correct the habitual truancy of the minor, or to correct the minor's persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper orders or directions of school authorities, or if the minor fails to respond to directives of a school attendance review board or probation officer or to services provided, the minor is then within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. . . . ." (More) AB 2350 (Hill) PageC in secure custody, in any of the following circumstances: 1. For up to 12 hours after having been taken into custody for the purpose of determining if there are any outstanding wants, warrants, or holds against the minor in cases where the arresting officer or probation officer has cause to believe that the wants, warrants, or holds exist. 2. For up to 24 hours after having been taken into custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian as soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor to his or her parent or guardian. 3. For up to 24 hours after having been taken into custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian as soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor to his or her parent or guardian, whose parent or guardian is a resident outside of the state wherein the minor was taken into custody, except that the period may be extended to no more than 72 hours when the return of the minor cannot reasonably be accomplished within 24 hours due to the distance of the parents or guardian from the county of custody, difficulty in locating the parents or guardian, or difficulty in locating resources necessary to provide for the return of the minor." (Welfare and Institutions Code 207(b).) This bill would delete paragraph (3) above, and revise paragraph (2) above to authorize the detention of a status offender in a secured facility for up to 24 hours after having been taken into custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian as soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor to his or her parent or guardian, with the exception of an out-of-state runaway who is being held pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Juveniles. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In (More) AB 2350 (Hill) PageD December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, . . . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents, . . . . California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison (More) AB 2350 (Hill) PageE population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<2> The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation, is not anticipated until later this year or 2011. This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Stated Need for This Bill (More) --------------------------- <2> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). The author states: I n the mid 1950s, a number of federal public safety and juvenile interest entities worked together to create the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ), with the purpose of creating a system whereby status offenders across state lines could be returned to their families. In 1982, the federal government passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDP Act) as a means to fund ICJ activities. By 1986, the ICJ was adopted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. In 2008, an audit by the Federal government's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) found that California was out of state compliance with its regulations because it stated that an out-of-state status offender could be held in custody for up to 72 hours. This was out of compliance with federal funding guidelines, which stated that a status offender should be held for no more than 24 hours except if being held pursuant to the ICJ. As a rule, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) keeps its status offenders in custody for the least amount of time possible. Now, especially with prison overcrowding and expensive bed space, CDCR has an incentive to move status offenders out of custody as quickly as possible. However, due to the statutory inconsistency, the OJJDP has found that CA is not in compliance with federal law, and therefore will be ineligible for federal grants. The audit suggested that a statutory change be made to correct the discrepancy. If California becomes ineligible, it will lose a significant amount of funding for juvenile crime prevention. California gets the largest amount of funding, with $7,272,000 in the 2009 fiscal year alone. (More) AB 2350 (Hill) PageG 2. What This Bill Would Do As explained above, this bill will provide that status offenders cannot be held in custody for more than 24 hours except pursuant to the Interstate Juvenile Compact, as specified, to assure compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 3. Background This bill affects minors who are essentially runaways or habitual truants. These are minors under the age of 18 years of age who persistently or habitually refuse to obey reasonable and proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian. Similarly, if a minor has four or more truancies within one school year, he or she falls under this status offender category. The federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was passed initially in 1974, contained a strong federal policy against placing non-criminal minors in secure institutions.<3> California received approximately $7.2 million in JJDPA funding in fiscal year 2009. In July of 2008, OJJDP issued a compliance monitoring audit report that recommended what this bill would do. That report stated in part: Because (California law) does not limit the time status offenders may be securely held to 24 hours prior to and immediately following an initial court hearing, this provision is in conflict with the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) provision of the JJDP Act. As most judges, intake workers, and other local facility staff are familiar with and will give precedence to state law, such a provision (permitting a 72-hour hold) is likely to increase violations of federal DSO requirements. In addition, when a state's DSO rate exceeds 5.7 but is less than 29.4 per 100,000 juveniles, a finding of compliance with de minimis exceptions requires that ---------------------- <3> Status Offenses (Steinhart, D.), The Future of Children THE JUVENILE COURT Vol. 6 No. 3 (Winter 1996). AB 2350 (Hill) PageH all or substantially all of the state's noncompliant incidents are in violation of state law. The state's eligibility to claim the de mimimis requirements on its annual compliance monitoring report is, therefore, diminished by this provision. It is recommended that the State seek legislative Change such that WIC Section 207 more fully comports with the Federal Act. . . .<4> *************** --------------------------- <4> Compliance Monitoring Audit Report, State of California, July 28-31, 2008, OJJDP (On file in Committee offices.)