BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1296
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1296 (Leno) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
SUMMARY : Prohibits secured detention as a sanction for truants
who are found in contempt of court solely on the grounds of
failing to comply with a court order relating to the truancy.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Revises legislative intent language to state that minors
adjudged wards of the court solely because of truancy shall
not be held in a secure facility, except for the purposes of
school attendance.
2)Enacts a new statute providing that a person under 18 years of
age shall not be detained in a secure facility, solely upon
the ground that he or she is in willful disobedience or
interference with any lawful order of the juvenile court, if
the basis of an order of contempt is the failure to comply
with a court order pursuant to truancy. Upon a finding of
contempt of court, the court may issue any other lawful order,
as necessary, to ensure the minor's school attendance
3)Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, a court shall
not imprison, hold in physical confinement, or otherwise
confine or place in custody a minor for contempt if the
contempt consists of the minor's failure to comply with a
court order relating to truancy, if the minor was adjudged a
ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a
truant?Upon a finding of contempt of court, the court may
issue any other lawful order, as necessary, to secure the
minor's attendance at school.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the purpose of juvenile court law is to provide
for the protection and safety of the public and each minor
under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve
SB 1296
Page 2
and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible,
removing the minor from the custody of his or her parents only
when necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and
protection of the public. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202.)
2)Provides for the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over a
person under the age of 18 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 violates curfew
offenses, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601.) These
types of offenses are known generally as "status" offenses -
acts that are illegal only if committed by juveniles
(typically, running away, disobeying parents, curfew
violations and truancy).
3)Provides that 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.
However, it is the intent of the Legislature that no minor who
is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant solely to this
subdivision shall be removed from the custody of the parent or
guardian except during school hours." (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
601 subd. (b).)
4)Limits the detention of status offenders in any jail, lockup,
juvenile hall, or other secure facility, as specified. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 207.)
5)Defines "secure facility" as a facility which is designed and
operated so as to insure that all entrances to, and exits
from, the facility are under the exclusive control of the
staff of the facility, whether or not the person being
detained has freedom of movement within the perimeters of the
facility, or which relies on locked rooms and buildings,
fences, or physical restraints in order to control behavior of
SB 1296
Page 3
its residents. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 206.)
6)Enumerates specified acts or omissions with respect to a court
of justice or proceedings therein which are contempt of the
authority of the court, including "disobedience of any lawful
judgment, order, or process of the court." (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 1209 subd. (a)(5).)
7)Provides that when the contempt consists of the omission to
perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to
perform, he or she may be imprisoned until he or she has
performed it, and in that case the act shall be specified in
the warrant of commitment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1219 subd.
(a).)
8)Specifies an exception from the authority to hold in contempt
"the victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence crime for
contempt when the contempt consists of refusing to testify
concerning that sexual assault or domestic violence crime, as
specified." (Code Civ. Proc., § 1219 subd. (b).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "California has
been active in trying to stem the School to Prison Pipeline
with creative school disciplinary measures and truancy
interventions. Counties around the state have developed
active School Attendance Review Boards that work to keep youth
out of the justice system, through mediation programs for
young people as well as for parents, and access to extensive
service systems that provide tutoring, mentoring, school
safety support, assessment of disabilities, alternative
education programs, transportation, and remedial services.
"As a result, incarceration for truancy has been dramatically
reduced. Still, data from 2012 and 2013 suggest that four
counties still rely upon incarceration. The vast majority of
the cases involved youth of color, and some were as young as
age 12. Many were incarcerated multiple times, raising
further questions about the effectiveness of incarceration as
a sanction.
SB 1296
Page 4
"Research on truancy has established that persistent refusal
to attend school stems from a complex series of factors that
have nothing to do with disrespect for the law. Some youth are
afraid to go to school because of bullying or gang activity.
Others have challenges at home ranging from abuse, neglect or
drugs, to situations that require the youth to stay home to
care for relatives, or help support the family. Still others
are too humiliated or frustrated to attend school because of
disabilities, intellectual limitations, or because disruptions
have caused them to fall far behind their classmates.
"Incarceration for truancy is an illusory 'solution' that
actually makes things worse. Research indicates that youth
who are incarcerated find it more difficult to complete their
education and their employability is negatively impacted.
Also, while state law requires that truants be separated from
delinquent youth, the incarceration leads many of these youths
to view themselves as criminals, and to act accordingly."
2)Background : According to the background provided by the
author, "California law has long prohibited the secure
confinement of "status offenders"- those who are under the
court's jurisdiction for behavior that would not be illegal
except for the individual's age. These violations include
breaking curfew, running away, being beyond the control of
one's parents, and truancy (see Welfare and Institutions Code
Sec. 601). While young people may be made a ward of the court
for truancy, under current law they must not be held in secure
confinement.
"Unfortunately, court decisions have found a way around the
statutory prohibition against incarceration in California and
nationally by using contempt or violation of a valid court
order. This loophole has allowed truants to be incarcerated
over the years for contempt or failing to obey a court order
to attend school. In many cases, incarceration of these youths
has made things worse for children whose only transgression is
not going to school. SB 1296 would close that loophole, and
prohibit secure confinement as a sanction in such instances.
"It is important to note that SB 1296 leaves intact a court's
power to punish contempt or violations of court orders related
to truancy, but simply eliminates incarceration from the
available sanctions in those narrow instances. SB 1296
SB 1296
Page 5
reaffirms the Legislature's long held intention that truants
should not be incarcerated."
3)California's Compulsory Education Laws : California requires
all people between the ages of six and 18 years of age to
compulsory, full-time education unless otherwise exempted by
law. Children are eligible to attend school if they have a
birthday prior to December 2 of the year they seek to enter
school. Compulsory education is not required until six years
of age.
Students between the ages of 16 and 18 may attend school
part-time if they participate in a continuation school
program. Exemptions exist for minors who have graduated high
school, met proficiency standards for high school equivalency
criteria, and participate in specified Regional Occupational
Programs.
Students who have more than three unexcused absences or are late
by more than 30 minutes for three days are considered truant.
By law, a school district is required to notify the parents of
a truant student that they are required to compel their child
to attend school.
Children who are truant three or more times can be determined
"habitual truants." Habitual truants can be referred to
attendance review boards, the district attorney, or the
juvenile probation department. Parents of truants may be
prosecuted for infractions and subjected to fines if found
guilty.
4)School Attendance Review Boards (SARBs) : SARBs assist in the
management of habitually truant children and their parents.
According to the California Department of Education, in 1974,
the Legislature enacted Education Code (EC) Section 48320 to
enhance the enforcement of compulsory education laws and to
divert students with school attendance or behavior problems
from the juvenile justice system until all available resources
have been exhausted. EC Section 48321 provides several
organizational structures for SARBs at the local and county
level to create a safety net for students with persistent
attendance or behavior problems. Although the goal of SARBs
is to keep students in school and provide them with a
meaningful educational experience, SARBs do have the power,
SB 1296
Page 6
when necessary, to refer students and their parents or
guardians to court.
SARBs, composed of representatives from various youth-serving
agencies, help truant or recalcitrant students and their
parents or guardians solve school attendance and behavior
problems through the use of available school and community
resources. County SARBs are convened by the county
superintendent at the beginning of each school year. In any
county where no county SARBs exists, a school district
governing board may elect to establish a local SARBs, which
shall operate in the same manner and have the same authority
as a county SARBs. In many counties, the county SARBs provide
consultant services to the local SARBs.
In addition to county and local SARBs authorized by EC Section
48321, EC Section 48325 established a State SARB for statewide
policy coordination and personnel training to divert students
with serious attendance and behavior problems from the
juvenile justice system and to reduce the number of dropouts
in the state public education system. The State Superintendent
of Public Instruction extends invitations of participation to
representatives of appropriate groups throughout the state.
The State SARB makes annual recommendations to the State
Superintendent regarding the needs of high-risk youth.
5)Data: Truancy in California : Based on the most recent
information available on the Department of Justice's website -
for the year 2011 - of the 21,827 status offense arrests
reported in California, 5,423 - 24.8 percent - were for
truancy. Juveniles in the 12-14 age group were more likely to
be arrested on a truancy violation than any other age group
(27.5 percent). Hispanic juveniles were more likely to be
arrested for truancy violations compared to any other
race/ethnic group (28.4 percent). In 2011, of the 16,357
petitioned status offenses reported, 2.5 percent (408) were
for truancy. (2011 Juvenile Justice in California, California
Dept. of Justice.)
6)Argument in Support : According to the The Youth Law Center ,
"The Youth Law Center is honored to serve as the co-sponsor
for S.B. 1296, which will clarify the existing intent of the
SB 1296
Page 7
Legislature that incarceration is not an appropriate response
to persistent truancy. Criminalizing truancy through
incarceration contributes directly to the 'School to Prison
Pipeline,' and fails to address the underlying issues that
cause young people not to attend school. This bill will
eliminate loopholes that, despite the Legislature's efforts,
have been used to imprison young people for contempt or
violation of a court order in relation to failure to attend
school.
"The Youth Law Center is a San Francisco-based public interest
law firm that works to protect the rights of young people in
the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Since 1978,
we have worked to reduce unnecessary incarceration of youth
through litigation and legislative advocacy, as well as
training and technical assistance for juvenile justice
professionals. We have also worked for better ways to address
school attendance problems, to assure that fewer youth are
referred to the justice system, and that youth receive
services to address the issues that contribute to poor school
attendance.
"The Legislature has made it clear, through Welfare and
Institutions Code sections 601, subdivision (b), and 207,
subdivision(a), that while young people may be made a ward of
the court for truancy, they must not be held in secure
confinement. Thus, Section 601, subdivision (b), provides
that 'no minor who is adjudged a ward of the court pursuant
solely to this subdivision shall be removed from the custody
of the parent or guardian except during school hours,' and
Section 207 makes it clear that youth taken into custody may
only be held in non-secure settings.
"Unfortunately, court decisions in two cases have found a way
around the statutory prohibition, using contempt or violation
of a valid court order. (In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d
283; L.A. v. Superior Court (2013) 209 Cal.App.4th 976.)
These cases recognize the Legislature's intent that truants
not be incarcerated, but take the position that continued
failure to obey orders to go to school transforms the
situation into one that permits incarceration. This bill seeks
to eliminate that loophole.
"Most counties in California have either abandoned the
SB 1296
Page 8
practice of incarcerating truants, or never used incarceration
to begin with. However, data from the Board of State and
Community Corrections for 2012 indicates that four counties
regularly hold status offenders in secure confinement. A
Public Records Act request to those four counties has revealed
that they continued to incarcerate young people in 2013.
"In the four counties that detained status offenders in 2012
(Kern, Alameda, Orange and San Diego) , at least 121 youth
were held for truancy in 2013. Many youth were incarcerated
more than once, including one youth held 5 times in 2013
alone. The age range was from 12 to 17 years of age. Among
the three counties providing data on race and ethnicity, 24
were white and 69 were youth of color. Although the majority
of detentions were held for a day or less, youth were
incarcerated for as long as 19 days.
"None of the counties that use incarceration provide targeted
programming for incarcerated truants. And while state law
requires that truants receive the same kinds of educational
services given to other detained youth, the reality is that
little or no academic instruction occurs because many youth
never leave the intake unit, and time frames are too short to
provide individualized services to the others.
"Incarceration represents a misguided response to truancy.
The truant youth who wind up in juvenile court are
disproportionately youth of color from poor or economically
struggling families -- with little access to the supportive
services and resources available to more affluent families.
Some are from families that are homeless or lack
transportation. Others come from homes in which they receive
inadequate parenting -- sometimes because of parental
substance abuse, and other times because they are living with
relatives who are ill-equipped to care for them. Still others
are subjected to domestic violence, have responsibilities to
supervise younger siblings, need to help support the family,
or must help relatives with medical conditions.
"Also, many chronically truant youth do not want to go to
school for good reasons. They may be experiencing bullying,
physical or sexual harassment, or they may be afraid of gang
members on the way to or at school. They may suffer from
educational disabilities (sometimes not yet diagnosed), or
SB 1296
Page 9
educational deficits that make going to school a frustrating
and humiliating experience. Others have serious mental health
needs that make it difficult for them to communicate or
interact in the school setting.
"Incarcerating young people who are up against so much already
in their lives is counter-productive and inappropriate.
"Shock incarceration" doesn't work even on delinquent youth,
and it is totally misplaced as a response to truancy.
"In fact, incarcerating truants makes the situation worse
rather than better. While California law requires truants to
be held separately from delinquent youth, the reality is that
they are often in intake units or other areas where delinquent
youth are also held. Further, they are treated identically to
delinquent youth, in terms of arrest, intake, institutional
clothing, and being held in locked cells.
"Extensive research has found that incarceration increases the
chances of future criminal justice system involvement. This
is believed to happen because the young person comes to
self-identify with other "deviant" youth, and others come to
expect him or her to act like his or her peers. In other
words, the system creates criminals by treating youth like
criminals.
"Also, incarcerating truants does nothing to address the
underlying causes of truancy, and contributes to even more
lost days of school. Incarceration interferes with efforts to
engage youth in education and thus reduces their future
educational achievement, as well. Youth who have experienced
incarceration have diminished future employment opportunities.
"The stress and disruption caused by incarceration may
actually exacerbate school and personal problems.
Incarceration itself is a traumatic experience, and youth with
underlying depression or mental health disorders may be
especially adversely affected. Many youth suffer further
damage to their self-esteem, and additional difficulties in
relating to their parents or caregivers.
"Every national group that has looked at the issue of
truancy-related incarceration has concluded that it must be
SB 1296
Page 10
stopped. The National Coalition of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges and The National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Coalition support eliminating the loophole in
federal law that permits incarceration of status offenders for
violation of a court order. The Center for Juvenile Justice
National Standards for the Care for Youth Charged with Status
Offenses call for a complete end to incarceration of status
offenders for any purpose. The Annie E. Casey Foundation
supports strengthening the requirement of
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. The Dignity in
Schools Campaign urges an end to criminal penalties for status
offenses, including incarceration. As of 2011, sixteen states
have already adopted legislation prohibiting the incarceration
of status offenders for violation of a court order, and that
number is sure to increase.
"Here in California, most counties have already abandoned the
incarceration of truants, if they ever used it. For example,
Los Angeles, which has a large proportion of the youth in
juvenile court system, has completely abandoned truancy
incarceration for contempt. Presiding Juvenile Court Judge
Michael Nash has written: [R]esearch shows that responses
such as secure detention of status offenders are ineffective
and potentially dangerous. Rather than punish them, youth,
particularly status offenders, are better served by being
diverted from the justice system. When you couple that with
community programs that include engagement of youth and their
families as well as programs designed to meet their specific
needs, the chances of achieving positive outcomes for youth
and their communities are greatly enhanced.
"Moreover, S.B. 1296 is being introduced at a time when
truancy interventions and alternatives to incarceration of
truants are already well-developed. The Vera Institute has
launched a Status Offender Reform Center
(http://www.vera.org/project/status-offense-reform-center),
which offers extensive resources and technical assistance on
decriminalization of status offenses, and the development of
alternative ways to work with youth. Also, in early 2014, the
U.S. Departments of Education and Justice released a guidance
package to enhance school climate and improve school
discipline policies and practices. The guidance includes
resources aimed at keeping young people in the classroom
(http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.htm
SB 1296
Page 11
l).
"The California Attorney General's office held a Keeping Kids
in School and Out of Court Summit in December 2013. The
program featured presentations on positive interventions and
supports to be used instead of traditional justice system
approaches, research on improving tracking of attendance,
collaboration with community agencies to serve hard-to-reach
youth, strengthening school attendance review boards, and
addressing trauma and adolescent development issues in
relation to school attendance. In the non-profit sector, the
California-based Attendance Works promotes better policy and
practice around school attendance. It offers extensive
publications and technical assistance on ways to address
truancy. Community based service providers around the state
stand ready to work with truant youth in a non-punitive
setting.
"S.B. 1296 is a timely measure that will close the loopholes
and support the Legislature's long held belief that truants
should not be incarcerated. It will do this by prohibiting
the use of incarceration for truants through contempt or
violation of a court order."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Alameda County District Attorney
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alliance for Children's Rights
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Association of Black Lawyers
California Attorney General's Office
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference
California Coalition for Youth
California Council on Youth Relations
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
California Public Defenders Association
California Teachers Association
SB 1296
Page 12
Chief Probation Officers of California
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund of California
Children's Law Center of California
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Commonwealth Juvenile Justice Program
Community Rights Campaign at the Labor Community Strategy Center
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Gay-Straight Alliance Network
John Burton Foundation
Legal advocates for Children and Youth
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth
National Association for Social Workers, California Chapter
Our Family Coalition
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Public Counsel
San Francisco Public Defender
Youth Law Center
Opposition
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744