BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1911 (Eggman) - Dual status minors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 16, 2016 |Policy Vote: HUMAN S. 4 - 0, |
| | JUD. 7 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1911 would do the following:
Require the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised
of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of juvenile
dependents or 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.
Require the Department of Social Services (DSS) to, on or
before January 1, 2019, implement a function within the Child
Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) that will
enable county child welfare agencies and county probation
departments to identify dual status youth.
Fiscal
Impact:
AB 1911 (Eggman) Page 1 of
?
Judicial Council : Potential costs of about $100,000 (General
Fund*) to chair and direct the activities of the committee,
including the development of a legislative report including
recommendations.
DSS : Minor, absorbable costs (General Fund) to implement a
case management system function to identify dual status youth,
as this functionality is currently being incorporated into the
Child Welfare Services-New System (CWS-NS), which is projected
for rollout within the timeframes specified in this measure.
However, should the report to the Legislature recommend an
alternate or new technology system to be used, costs to meet
the case management system functionality could be significant.
Report recommendations: Unknown, potential major future cost
pressure (General Fund) to facilitate and enhance
comprehensive data and outcome tracking by child welfare
services, probation departments, and potentially other
agencies, as recommended in the yet to be completed report.
*Trial Court Trust Fund
Background: 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. (Welfare & Institutions Code § 241.1.)
In its report, "Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot
Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are
Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems"
(Report 2015-115, February 2016), the California State Auditor
stated the following results of its review:
State-level agencies have provided limited guidance to
county agencies regarding youth who are involved in
both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice
system (dually involved youth) because state law does
AB 1911 (Eggman) Page 2 of
?
not require them to do so. As a result, counties have
used their own discretion in determining the degree to
which they track the population and outcomes of these
youth. While the State does not mandate such tracking,
best practice models recommend collecting data and
tracking outcomes. Since January 2005, state law grants
counties the option of developing local dual status
protocols that designate certain youth as both
dependents and wards of the court in order to maximize
support for these children. Depending on the county in
which they live, when youth who are already dependents
of the court are adjudicated wards of the court, they
may either have their dependency case closed (crossover
youth) or fall under the jurisdiction of both
dependency and delinquency simultaneously (dual status
youth). Previously, state law required counties to
terminate the dependency cases of youth in the child
welfare system who were declared wards of the court,
thus placing these youth within the sole jurisdiction
of the counties' probation agencies. Before the law
changed, California was one of only two states in the
nation that did not use some form of dual status. As of
February 2016, the Judicial Council reports that 18
counties have adopted dual status protocols. Six of
these counties have populations greater than 1
million-the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara.
Collectively, these 18 counties represent 67 percent of
the State's population.
Since the initial implementation of dual status
protocols in 2005, state agencies have provided the
counties with only limited guidance related to tracking
dually involved youth. Specifically, the State has not
defined key terms or established outcomes to track
related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot
monitor the outcomes for this population statewide. For
example, our review of three counties that adopted dual
status protocols (dual status counties)-Los Angeles,
Riverside, and Santa Clara-and three nondual status
counties-Alameda, Kern, and Sacramento-revealed that
the six counties had different definitions for
recidivism. Some counties define recidivism based on
AB 1911 (Eggman) Page 3 of
?
the period when the subsequent offense occurs as well
as the severity of the offense. Specifically, counties'
various definitions of the recidivism period included
the youth's probationary period, the six-month period
following disposition, the six-month period following
the termination of the youth's probation, and the
three-year period following the youth's first entry
into probation. 1 County definitions of recidivism
events also differ, as some counties consider new
sustained violations of probation as recidivism while
others include only new citations and arrests. Until
the State establishes standard definitions, the
outcomes counties decide to track are unlikely to be
comparable, making it difficult to determine the
success of county efforts.
The report additionally provided the following highlights:
Since 2005 State agencies have provided limited guidance
to county agencies related to tracking dually involved
youth and cannot monitor the outcomes for this population
statewide.
Counties use their own discretion in determining the
degree to which they track the population and outcomes of
these youth.
The outcomes counties track are likely not comparable,
and therefore, it is difficult to measure the success of
their efforts.
To facilitate county tracking of dually involved youth,
the State could require the California Department of Social
Services to improve its statewide case management system's
functionality.
Five of the six counties we reviewed could not
accurately identify the total number of youth they had
declared as dually involved from January 2012 through
December 2014-most of the counties use their own data
systems for identifying this population which contain
inaccurate or incomplete data.
In reviewing the case files of 166 youth, it was found
AB 1911 (Eggman) Page 4 of
?
that youth in dual status counties received more continuity
of services from social workers and dependency attorneys
than did the youth in nondual status counties.
Counties provided little in the way of continuity of
court appointed special advocates.
This bill seeks to address many of the issued identified by the
State Auditor in its report.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require the Judicial Council to convene a
committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the
needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, including,
but not limited to, judges, probation officers, social workers,
youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile
justice system, child welfare and juvenile justice attorneys,
child welfare and juvenile justice advocates, education
officials, and representatives from the DSS, county child
welfare agencies, and county probation departments.
Additionally, this bill:
Requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and
report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate
and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the
state's youth involved in both the child welfare system and
the juvenile justice system.
Requires the committee's recommendations to include, but not
be limited to, all of the following:
o A common identifier for counties to use to reconcile
data across child welfare and juvenile justice systems
statewide.
o Standardized definitions for terms related to the
populations of youth involved in both the child welfare
system and the juvenile justice system.
o Identified and defined outcomes for counties to
track youth involved in both the child welfare system and
AB 1911 (Eggman) Page 5 of
?
the juvenile justice system, including, but not limited
to, outcomes related to recidivism, health, pregnancy,
homelessness, employment, and education.
o Established baselines and goals for the identified
and defined outcomes specified above.
o An assessment as to the costs and benefits
associated with requiring all counties to implement the
committee's recommendations.
o An assessment of whether a single technology system,
including, but not limited to, the DSS' CWS/CMS, is
needed to track youth in the child welfare system and the
juvenile justice system.
Requires the DSS to, on or before January 1, 2019, implement a
function within the CWS/CMS that will enable county child
welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify
youth involved in both the child welfare system and the
juvenile justice system who are within their counties and
shall issue instructions to all counties on how to completely
and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both
the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.
Prior
Legislation: AB 129 (Cohn) Chapter 468/2004 authorizes a minor
who is designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the
juvenile court to be known as a dual status child. This bill
authorizes the probation department and the child welfare
services department in any county to create a protocol which
would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be
designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile
court.
-- END --