BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 61
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 61 (Yee) - As Amended: July 2, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill specifies standards for solitary confinement of minors
in state and local juvenile detention facilities, and revises
the composition of county juvenile justice commissions.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that a minor held in any secure state or local
facility may not be held in solitary confinement, as defined,
unless the minor or ward poses an immediate and substantial
risk of harm to others and all other less-restrictive options
have been exhausted. A minor may be held in solitary
confinement only for the minimum time necessary to address the
safety risk and only if solitary confinement does not
compromise the mental or physical health of the minor. The
minor may not be held in solitary confinement for more than 24
hours in a one-week period without the written approval of the
director of the entity in charge of the minor.
2)Prohibits the use of solitary confinement for the purposes of
discipline, punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation.
3)Requires each local and state juvenile facility to document
the use of solitary confinement, including the rationale, and
the dates and duration of each occurrence. Requires, if health
or mental health clinical evaluations were performed, these
records to certify that the results of those evaluations were
considered in the decision to place a minor in solitary
confinement. Requires these records to be available for
inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act.
4)Revises composition of county juvenile justice commissions,
SB 61
Page 2
effective January 1, 2015, requiring each juvenile justice
commission to include, if available, at least two members who
are parents or guardians of previously or currently
incarcerated youth, and one licensed social worker,
psychiatrist, or psychologist with expertise in adolescent
development.
5)Authorizes a juvenile justice commission, as part of its
annual facilities inspection, to review records regarding
solitary confinement and include findings in its annual report
to the court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.
Authorizes the commission to share the report with the county
board and publish the report on the county's website.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)The bill's definition of solitary confinement too broad.
According to this bill "Solitary confinement" means the
involuntary holding of a person in a room or cell from which
the person is prevented from leaving, in isolation from
persons other than guards, facility staff, and attorneys,
during hours other than a facility's sleeping hours."
This definition could be interpreted to mean any youth held
involuntarily held in a single cell, which is the case for
most Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) wards, and many
juvenile hall wards. Narrowly interpreted, this definition
could result in significant state and local (reimbursable)
costs. The author may wish to amend this definition to ensure
that single-celling is not inadvertently prohibited, which
would drive costs in the tens of millions of dollars.
2)Minor state and moderate local costs, likely in excess of
$150,000 statewide, to document in detail each instance of
solitary confinement. Any local costs are state-reimbursable.
There are about 700 wards in state facilities, and about 8,500
in local juvenile halls, camps and other facilities.
3)Minor, likely absorbable state and local administrative costs
to alter existing procedures regarding the use of solitary
confinement. In most cases, the provisions of this bill will
probably not differ markedly from existing procedures. Any
local costs are state-reimbursable.
4)Minor local costs for additional juvenile justice commission
SB 61
Page 3
reporting regarding solitary confinement. Such reporting is
permissive and is not state-reimbursable.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill is necessary to
establish "practical standards" for the use of solitary
confinement of minors, and cites a United Nations
recommendation that all countries ban solitary confinement
barring exceptional circumstances, with a total ban on
juvenile solitary confinement.
2)Is current state and local law/regulation insufficient ? The
DJF contends its practice is consistent with SB 61 - if the
definition of solitary confinement is expanded to allow for
single-celling. Probation officials also oppose the narrow
definition of solitary confinement and contend the bill is
unnecessary.
Current law requires the Board of State and Community
Corrections (BSCC) to adopt regulations and standards for the
operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the
confinement of minors. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section
210.)
The CA Code of Regulations states, "The facility administrator
shall develop written policies and procedures concerning the
need to segregate minors. Minors who are segregated shall not
be denied normal privileges available at the facility, except
when necessary to accomplish the objectives of segregation.
Written procedures shall be developed which provide a review
of all minors to determine whether it is appropriate for them
to remain in segregation and for direct visual observation.
When segregation is for the purpose of discipline, Title 15,
Section 1390 shall apply."
Moreover, as part of comprehensive litigation involving
conditions at the state's DJJ, which began in 2003 in Farrell
v. Cate, DJF is required to adopt reformed methods for dealing
with containment or isolation of wards. (See Consent Decree,
Farrell v. Allen (Nov. 19, 2004); Safety and Welfare Remedial
Plan: Implementing Reform in California (July 10, 2006).)
3)Support . This bill, sponsored by The CA Public Defenders
Association, the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights, and the
Youth Justice Coalition, is supported by a lengthy list of
SB 61
Page 4
youth advocates who contend current state and local practice
needs additional restrictions and oversight.
The Ella Baker Center states, "Current Title 15 regulations
fail to provide specific guidelines around the use of solitary
confinement, oftentimes used interchangeably with "isolation"
or "segregation." Title 15 charges facility administrators to
develop written policies and procedures regarding the use of
segregation but does not provide any additional guidance or
limitations. Rather, it allows segregation for the purpose of
"discipline." Further, current law does not define solitary
confinement for juveniles?.
"Research has shown the traumatic toll and mental health
breakdown that solitary confinement causes in healthy adult
prisoners with no mental illness history. Youth who are still
in their development stages, who are emotionally and mentally
immature, are at an even greater risk of permanent damage
caused by isolation. Solitary confinement is not an
evidence-based practice that promotes rehabilitative and
therapeutic goals; it is a method to control a correctional
environment. It does not properly address disciplinary issues
and more often, it increases these behaviors in youth,
especially those with mental conditions."
4)Opposition . According to the Chief Probation Officers of
California, "The Board of State and Community Corrections
(BSCC) already has regulations on juvenile solitary
confinement contained in Title 15 and 24. It is unnecessary
at this time to incur additional costs of rewriting and
training on standards that have already been put in place.
Current state regulations, as well as local policies and
procedures, authorize the manager or designee to make the
determination of who should be removed from the general
program as a result of safety and security issues. Further,
the definition of solitary confinement would essentially apply
to every juvenile within a facility based on its broad
application to this population."
5)Similar Legislation . SB 1363 (Yee), 2012, failed passage in
Senate Public Safety.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 61
Page 5