BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Version: June 16, 2016
Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Dual-status minors
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require the Judicial Council to convene a
committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the
needs of juvenile dependents and wards to develop and report to
the Legislature, by January 1, 2018, its recommendations to
facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking
for the state's dual-status youth.
This bill would also require the State Department of Social
Services, on or before January, 1, 2019, to implement a function
within the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System that
will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation
departments to identify dual-status youth within their counties,
and to issue instructions to all counties on the manner in which
to completely and consistently track the involvement of these
youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice
system.
BACKGROUND
Together, the dependency and delinquency systems make up
California's juvenile justice system. The Welfare & Institutions
Code governs the juvenile justice system, and provides for the
treatment and care of dependent children, as well as the
punishment and rehabilitation of delinquent children. While
components of the same system, these two entities are separate
in many respects. They are often physically separate, and there
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 2 of ?
are separate judges, separate agencies, and separate attorneys
to help children navigate through these processes. Research
shows that the outcomes for youth who crossover from dependency
to delinquency are dismal. Crossover youth demonstrate a higher
incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, and
educational difficulties when compared with their peers who are
involved in only one system. One Los Angeles-based study found
that over 83 percent of crossover youth had mental health or
substance abuse problems and over 45 percent were truant. When
compared with their peers who are only involved in the
dependency system, crossover youth are more likely to experience
substantial difficulty transitioning to adulthood. They are more
likely to be on public welfare, two to three times more likely
to access at least two or three government service systems, and
are less likely to be consistently employed within a few years
of emancipation. (Wylie, Closing the Crossover Gap: Amending
Fostering Connections to Provide Independent Living Services for
Foster Youth Who Crossover to the Justice System (2014) 52 Fam.
Ct. Rev. 298, 300.)
Prior to 2005, all California counties exercised "exclusive
jurisdiction" over these youth, meaning a child could only
receive services from either the dependency or delinquency
system. In cases where the court terminated dependency
jurisdiction after the child violated the law, the child lost
child welfare benefits, such as drug rehabilitation services,
mental health counseling, and court-appointed parental
supervision, in exchange for probation. (Jessica Springer,
Orange County's Answer to the Dual Jurisdictional Dilemma (2014)
56 Orange County Lawyer 30.) Recognizing the needs of this
particular population, the Legislature passed AB 129 (Cohn, Ch.
468, Stats. 2004) which gave counties the discretion to exercise
either dual or exclusive jurisdiction over crossover youths.
Despite this authority, only nine counties have adopted
protocols in response to AB 129 and, thus, most still operate
under an exclusive jurisdiction system. The State Auditor,
directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, was asked
last year to determine how well counties are serving crossover
youth. The State Auditor found it could generally not determine
how county programs were performing because the state had not
issued guidelines to the counties on how to track or even
identify these youth, and thus, it was "difficult to determine
the success of county efforts." (California State Auditor,
Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the
Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 3 of ?
the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Report 2015-115
(Feb. 2016) p. 2.)
Accordingly, this bill would require the Judicial Council to
convene a committee for the purpose of establishing
recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and
outcome tracking for crossover youth. The bill would also
require the State Department of Social Services to implement a
function within the Child Welfare Services/Case Management
System that will allow counties and probation departments to
identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and the
juvenile justice system who are residing within their counties,
and to issue instructions on how to track the involvement of
these youth in both systems.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a minor may be removed from the
physical custody of his or her parents and become a dependent of
the juvenile court for serious abuse or neglect, or risk of
serious abuse or neglect, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.
300.)
Existing law 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. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Secs. 601 and 602.)
Existing law requires, if a child is both a dependent and a
delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services
department to determine which status will best serve the
interests of the child and the protection of society, and
authorizes the probation department and the child welfare
services department 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 241.1.)
This bill would require 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
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 4 of ?
Social Services (DSS), child welfare agencies and probation
agencies.
This bill would require the committee, by January 1, 2018, to
develop and 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 including:
common identifiers and standard definitions for counties to
use across child welfare and juvenile justice systems;
identified and defined 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;
established baselines for outcomes to be tracked; and
an assessment of costs and benefits associated with requiring
counties to implement the committee's recommendations.
This bill would require, by January 1, 2019, DSS to implement a
function within the child welfare 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 track completely and
consistently the involvement of these youth in both systems.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
The key issue this bill is raising is the ability for counties
to identify and track youth who are involved in both the child
welfare and juvenile justice systems. The lack of common
identifiers, standardized definitions for youth involved in
both systems and identified outcomes for tracking leaves the
counties without the information needed to track this
population.
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 5 of ?
2.If identified, dual status youth could be provided better care
and services
Despite the separation between the dependency and the
delinquency system, there is considerable overlap with the
children that are involved in both systems. Research
consistently confirms that children who are abused and
maltreated are much more likely to engage in delinquent and
criminal behavior than the general population. It is estimated
that "child abuse and neglect increase the risk of any arrest of
a juvenile by 55 percent and the risk of committing a violent
crime by 96 percent." (Schaumleffel, Kiley Dual Jurisdiction in
California: How the Juvenile Courts are Failing Crossover Youth
(2013) 17 UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol'y 77, 82.)
The link between dependency and delinquency has been of interest
to state policy makers for over a decade. As early as 2005, the
Administrative Office of the Courts noted that "much of the
difficulty in establishing the scope of the relationship between
juvenile dependency and delinquency arises from the lack of
research and data in general and from methodological differences
with the studies that do exist." (See Intersection Between
Juvenile Dependency and Delinquency: Available Research (2005)
[as of May 23, 2016].) In 2004, the Legislature passed AB 129
(see Background) allowing counties to create local protocols for
crossover youth. There have since been numerous bills on the
classification of sexually trafficked youth, and since AB 12
(Beall & Bass, Ch. 559, Stats. 2010) many bills on the ability
of youth to continue in, or reenter, foster care until 21 years
of age.
Yet, despite the profusion of legislation, research, and
studies, crossover youth in California remain largely
unidentified and underserviced. This bill would take a measured
and proactive approach to address the lack of data and services
related to this population. First, this bill would require the
Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of
professionals who are involved with serving the needs youth in
the dependency and delinquency systems to develop and report to
the Legislature recommendations including: (1) a common
identifier for counties to use to reconcile data across child
welfare and juvenile justice systems statewide; (2) standardized
definitions for terms related to crossover youth; (3) identified
and defined outcomes for counties to track youth involved in
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 6 of ?
both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system;
and (4) established baselines and goals for these youth, as
specified.
Secondly, this bill would require, within one year after the
committee is required to submit recommendations to the
Legislature, the Department of Social Services to (1) update the
statewide Child Welfare Services/Case Management System with a
function that will enable county child welfare agencies and
county probation departments to identify crossover youth within
their respective systems, and (2) instruct all counties on how
to completely and consistently track the involvement of these
youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice system.
In support, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University
of San Diego School of Law argues that these children are in the
greatest need of services, which this bill would help identify.
Although dual-status youth often make up only a small portion
of those in the foster care system (in California, about 3,000
foster youth enter the juvenile justice system at a given
time), these youth are by definition uniquely in need of an
attentive and loving upbringing, even among a broader
population of abused or neglected children.
Support : Children Now
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Children's Advocacy Institute
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 2573 (Stone, 2014) would have authorized a court to assume or
resume transition jurisdiction over a nonminor who attained 18
years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement
without consideration of whether the rehabilitative goals of the
nonminor ward, as set forth in the case plan, had been met. This
bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations
AB 1911 (Eggman)
Page 7 of ?
Committee.
AB 787 (Stone, Ch. 487, Stats. 2013) made clarifying and
technical changes to the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act (Act) to ensure the continued implementation of the
Act.
AB 1712 (Beall, Ch. 846, Stats. 2012) made technical and
clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act.
AB 212 (Beall, Ch. 459, Stats. 2011) made technical and
clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act.
AB 12 (Beall and Bass, Ch. 559, Stats. 2010) established the
California Fostering Connections to Success Act, which extended
transitional foster care services to eligible youth between ages
18 and 21 and required California to seek federal financial
participation for Kin-GAP.
Prior Vote :
Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)
Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************