BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:   April 12, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES


                                Susan Bonilla, Chair


          AB 1911  
          (Eggman) - As Amended March 31, 2016


          SUBJECT:  Dual-status minors


          SUMMARY:  Requires the development and implementation of  
          standardized definitions and defined goals for youth involved  
          with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice  
          system. 





          Specifically, this bill:  



          1)Requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee of  
            stakeholders serving the needs of dependents and wards of the  
            juvenile court, including judges, social workers, probation  
            officers, education officials, youth, attorneys and advocates  
            involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice  
            systems, and representatives from the Department of Social  
            Services (DSS), child welfare agencies and probation agencies.  


          2)Requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and  








                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  2





            report to the Legislature recommendations to facilitate and  
            enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth  
            involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice  
            systems, and further requires recommendations to include:



             a)   A common identifier and standard definitions for  
               counties to use across child welfare and juvenile justice  
               systems;

             b)   Outcomes for counties to track youth involved in both  
               systems, including, but not limited to, outcomes related to  
               recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment and  
               education; 



             c)   Established baselines and goals for outcomes to be  
               tracked; and 



             d)   An assessment of costs and benefits associated with  
               requiring counties to implement the committee's  
               recommendations.



          3)Requires DSS, by January 1, 2019, to implement a function  
            within the child welfare services automation system that will  
            allow county child welfare and juvenile justice departments to  
            identify youth involved in both systems and to issue  
            instructions to all counties on how to completely and  
            consistently track the involvement of these youth in both  
            systems.

          EXISTING LAW:  









                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  3







          1)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child  
            who is subject to abuse or neglect.  (WIC 300) 

          2)Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child  
            when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency  
            jurisdiction rendering the child a ward.  (WIC 601 and 602) 



          3)Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a  
            delinquent, the probation department and child welfare  
            services agency must initially determine which status will  
            best serve the interests of the child and the protection of  
            society.  Notwithstanding the above, authorizes the probation  
            department and the child welfare services agency in any  
            county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court  
            judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a  
            minor who meets specified criteria to be designated  
            simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the  
            juvenile court.  (WIC 241.1) 





          FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. 





          COMMENTS: 













                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  4





          Dual status youth:  It has been acknowledged that youth involved  
          in the juvenile justice system and the child welfare system face  
          greater challenges and adversity as they move into adulthood.   
          They often face challenges that youth involved in only one of  
          the systems or youth involved in neither of the systems face,  
          and their outcomes are often poorer and require greater supports  
          and services to address their needs, reduce recidivism and  
          foster rehabilitation.  The State of California has passed  
          legislation and authorized various pilot projects in an attempt  
          to address the needs of these youth, but a comprehensive  
          statewide approach to meet those needs and help youth  
          successfully transition to adulthood does not yet exist.


          At the request of this bill's author, the Joint Legislative  
          Audit Committee asked the State Auditor (Auditor) to determine  
          if and how counties are serving these "dual status" minors --  
          that is, youth who are part of both the juvenile justice system  
          and the child welfare system.  The Auditor, however, was unable  
          to determine which counties had successful programs, as counties  
          were unable to accurately identify and track these dually  
          involved youth.  One of the Auditor's resulting recommendations  
          was that the state child welfare automation system identify  
          dually involved youth and stakeholders and, under the leadership  
          of the Judicial Council, develop common data to collect, track  
          and evaluate outcomes for these youth and report these outcomes  
          to the Legislature.


          Dual status jurisdiction:  Counties are enabled to adopt dual  
          status protocols in order to allow for better oversight and  
          provision of services to youth who are involved in both the  
          child welfare and juvenile justice systems.  Dual status for  
          children who are both wards of the court and dependent children  
          allow for better oversight and coordination between the child  
          welfare services and probation systems.  Counties that elect to  
          participate in this voluntary program are tasked with creating a  
          dual status protocol to permit a youth who meets specified  
          criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward  








                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  5





          of the court simultaneously.


          However, according to the Judicial Council website, only 18 of  
          California's 58 counties have elected to develop these  
          protocols.  Still, the counties that have elected to participate  
          include:  Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, Riverside, and  
          San Bernardino Counties, so that most youth involved with both  
          the dependency and delinquency systems in California today live  
          in dual-status jurisdictions.


          State Auditor report:  At the direction of the Joint Legislative  
          Audit Committee, the California State Auditor was tasked with  
          determining how well counties are serving youth involved with  
          both the child welfare and delinquency system.  Because the  
          state has not issued guidelines to the counties on how to track  
          or identify youth, the State Auditor was unable to determine how  
          county programs were performing.


          The Auditor therefore recommended that DSS, which is tasked with  
          operating the state case management automation system for  
          tracking youth in the child welfare system -the Child Welfare  
          Services/Case Management System- develop a function in the  
          system that will allow child welfare and juvenile justice  
          systems staff to identify and track dual status youth.  The goal  
          of this recommendation is to ensure that California has  
          statewide consistency in its management systems that will help  
          ensure dual status youth receive all necessary supports and  
          services.


          Need for this bill:  According to the author, "For youth  
          involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems,  
          coordination is critical in order to ensure the proper services  
          are identified and delivered.  In current law, there are no  
          standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in  
          both systems, nor is there an integrated system to track and  








                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  6





          monitor youth and outcomes.  Without standardized definitions of  
          what it means to be a youth involved in both the child welfare  
          and juvenile justice systems or identified outcomes for counties  
          to track, there is little that can be done to track this  
          population of youth.  This bill provides guidance to the  
          counties, including definitions, common identifiers, and  
          identified outcomes to better track youth involved in both the  
          child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.  Proper  
          tracking systems will enable California to better serve one of  
          its most vulnerable populations."


           SECOND COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE  .  This bill was previously heard  
          in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, on April 5, 2016, and was  
          approved on a 10-0 vote.



          RELATED LEGISLATION:


          AB 2813 (Bloom), 2016, prevents a probation officer from  
          detaining a youth unnecessarily if it is determined that the  
          child is in need of child welfare services, or is already a part  
          of the child welfare system.  This bill will be heard in  
          Assembly Human Services on April 12th. 


          AB 388 (Chesbro), Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014, specified that  
          a dependent ward of the juvenile court is not necessarily  
          subject to other sanctions because of his or her status as a  
          dependent of the court.


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:












                                                                    AB 1911


                                                                    Page  7





          Support


          Children's Advocacy - Sponsor


          Children Now




          Opposition


          None on file.




          Analysis Prepared by:Kelsy C. Castillo / HUM. S. / (916)  
          319-2089