BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1911| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1911 Author: Eggman (D) Amended: 8/15/16 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/14/16 AYES: McGuire, Hancock, Liu, Nguyen NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/16 AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Dual status minors SOURCE: The Childrens Advocacy Institute DIGEST: This bill requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of juvenile dependents and wards to develop and report to the Legislature, by January 1, 2018, recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the state's dual-status youth. This bill also requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), on or before January, 1, 2019, to implement a function within the applicable child welfare case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and probation departments to identify dual-status youth within their counties, and to issue AB 1911 Page 2 instructions to all counties on the manner in which to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both systems. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Establishes a child welfare system for children who are or are at risk of being physically, sexually or emotionally abused, being neglected or being exploited to ensure their safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being. (Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 300, et seq.) 2)Establishes a juvenile justice system for any child or youth who violates any state, federal or local law, except those crimes serious enough to warrant prosecution as an adult if committed by a youth over age 14. (WIC 602) 3)Requires that whenever a minor appears to come within both the dependency and delinquency descriptions, the county probation and the child welfare services departments shall jointly determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society, and develop a joint written protocol to ensure coordination. Both recommendations shall be presented to the juvenile court with the petition that is filed on behalf of the minor, and the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the minor. (WIC 241.1) 4)Prohibits the filing of a petition or petitions, or the entry of an order by the juvenile court, to make a minor simultaneously both a dependent child and a ward of the court, except under specific written protocol that allows the county probation department and the child welfare services department to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child AB 1911 Page 3 be designated as a dual status child. (WIC 241.1 (d)) 5)Requires that any dual status protocol include a plan to collect data in order to evaluate the protocol, as specified. (WIC 241.1. (d)(4)) 6)Requires the Judicial Council to collect and compile all of the data and to prepare an evaluation of the results of the new protocol for a representative sample of the counties that create a protocol for dual status minors. Requires the Judicial Council to report its findings and any resulting recommendations to the Legislature within two years of the date those counties first deem a child to be a dual status child. (WIC 241.2) 7)Requires the Judicial Council to review all proposed protocols to ensure that they provide for the collection of adequate, standardized data to perform these evaluations. In order to assist counties with data collection and evaluation, permits the Judicial Council to prepare model data collection and evaluation provisions that a county must include in their protocol. (WIC 241.2) This bill: 1)Deletes WIC Section 241.2, which mandates data collection and analysis of the dual status protocols and requires a report to the Legislature on its findings. 2)Creates a new Section 241.2, which 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 CDSS, child welfare agencies and AB 1911 Page 4 probation agencies. 3)Requires 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, as specified. 4)Requires that the committee's recommendations to include, but not be limited to, all of the following: a) A common identifier for counties to use to reconcile data across child welfare and juvenile justice systems statewide. b) Standardized definitions for terms related to the populations of youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. c) Identified and defined outcomes for counties to track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, including, but not limited to, outcomes related to recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment, and education. d) Established baselines and goals for the identified and defined outcomes, as specified. e) An assessment as to the costs and benefits associated with requiring all counties to implement the committee's recommendations. f) An assessment of whether a single technology system, including, but not limited to, the State Department of Social Services' Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) or the Child Welfare Services-New System (CWS-NS), is needed to track youth in the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. AB 1911 Page 5 5)Requires CDSS, by January 1, 2019, to implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation 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. Background This bill seeks to facilitate counties' ability to identify and track youth who are involved in both the child welfare and the juvenile justice systems. Currently, lack of common identifiers, standardized definitions, and defined outcomes make it difficult to track this population of youth. Dual Status Youth In 2004, California passed AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004), which made it possible for "dual status youth" who are involved in both the child welfare services and the juvenile justice systems to receive the oversight and benefits of both systems. Prior to passage of AB 129, the law required that cases involving foster youth who were also involved in the juvenile justice system had to be placed into either the child welfare or the justice system. AB 129 allowed counties to voluntarily adopt formal dual status protocols, through which youth can simultaneously be under the formal jurisdiction of both the dependency and delinquency courts. Per AB 129, those protocols must describe the process for assessing the eligibility for and necessity of dual status youth, the communication between judges in the dependency and delinquency courts, the collection of data for the Judicial Council evaluation, and the adoption of either a "lead court/lead agency" or "on-hold" model. AB 1911 Page 6 AB 129 also required Judicial Council to collect and compile data, to evaluate the results of implementing the dual status protocols, and reports its finding to the Legislature. The study, which was conducted in 2007, revealed that the counties' implementation of protocols and experiences varied greatly. According to the Judicial Council Web site, only 18 of California's 58 counties have elected to develop dual status protocols. Because of the local flexibility, the dual status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and may or may not be comparable. Additionally, some of the counties that have not opted to adopt dual status protocols are working on independent projects to help dual status youth. State Auditor findings. In June 2015, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the Bureau of State Audits, at the request of the author of this bill, to determine whether counties are addressing the needs of dual status youth. The resulting report was issued in February 2016. However, because the state has not issued guidelines to the counties on how to track or identify dual status youth, the State Auditor was unable to determine how county programs were performing. Per the Auditor, "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. Furthermore, the state cannot perform a robust comparison between the populations of youth involved in dual status and nondual status counties." Without consistent definitions, and tracking of attributes and outcomes, it is impossible to reach conclusions about best models and practices, determined the Auditor. For example, the counties all defined recidivism differently, so it was not possible to say which protocols, programs or services might be working to reduce recidivism in these youth. AB 1911 Page 7 The Auditor recommended that the Legislature require Judicial Council to work with a variety specified of stakeholders to develop common definitions and outcome measures. The Auditor also recommended that CDSS, which operates the state case management automation system for tracking youth in the child welfare system (CWS/CMS), develop a function in that system to allow staff in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to identify youth involved with both systems and issue guidance on how to use that function and fully track those youth. This bill generally implements the Auditor's recommendations. Technology CDSS is in the process of replacing its automated CWS/CMS with a new system, which it calls Child Welfare Services-New System. The case management module, which would contain functionality for tracking dual status youth, is projected to begin development work in FY 2017/18 and to be completed by end of 2020. As noted by the Auditor, there is no statewide automated system for the probation departments. In fact, the Judicial Council noted in its response to the audit that, "while there is a case management system that collects data on a statewide basis for the child welfare system, there is no comparable system for juvenile justice data. The Legislature recently directed the Board of State and Community Corrections to assemble a Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, which submitted its final report and recommendations to the Legislature earlier this year. That report documents the lack of a statewide system and the resultant problems in measuring recidivism or evaluating different programs and processes in the juvenile justice system. Given these shortcomings we would simply note that it may be difficult for recommendations on dual status data collection to be implemented by a council committee on a timely basis without an effective statewide data system for collecting juvenile justice-related data and outcomes." AB 1911 Page 8 Prior Legislation 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. AB 12 (Beall, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010) authorized the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over a child who has been adjudicated a dependent because of abuse or neglect until the ward or dependent child attains the age of 21 years. AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) authorized the probation department and 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 ward of the juvenile court. The bill also required the Judicial Council to collect and compile data, to evaluate the results of implementing the protocol, and to report its findings to the Legislature. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 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. CDSS: 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 CWS-NS, which is projected for rollout within the timeframes AB 1911 Page 9 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. SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16) The Children's Advocacy Institute (source) Children Now OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16) Department of Finance ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/16 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Burke, Jones-Sawyer AB 1911 Page 10 Prepared by: Taryn Smith / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524 8/15/16 20:10:11 **** END ****