BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1998 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Campos |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 5, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juveniles: Data Collection
HISTORY
Source: NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
Prior Legislation:None
Support: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; National
Association of Social Workers; California Chapter;
Pacific Juvenile Defender Association
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the BSCC to "prepare
guidelines for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice
caseload and performance and outcome data by race and
ethnicity."
Current law generally requires Department of Justice ("DOJ") to
collect specified crime-related data, and to prepare an annual
report of crime-related statistics, as specified. (Penal Code §
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageB
of?
13010.)
Current law provides that DOJ "may serve as statistical and
research agency to the Department of Corrections, the Board of
Prison Terms, the Board of Corrections, the Department of the
Youth Authority, and the Youthful Offender Parole Board."
(Penal Code § 13011.)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime
statistics report, DOJ shall provide statistics showing the
"administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial,
penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including
those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals
or delinquents," (Penal Code § 13012(a)(3) and the
"administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial,
judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in
the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the
subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to
transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal
court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated
in an adult criminal court." (Penal Code § 13012(a)(4).)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime
statistics report, DOJ "shall include the following information:
(1) The annual number of fitness hearings held in the
juvenile courts under Section 707 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, and the outcomes of those hearings
including orders to remand to adult criminal court,
cross-referenced with information about the age,
gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose
cases are the subject of those fitness hearings.
(2) The annual number of minors whose cases are filed
directly in adult criminal court under Sections 602.5
and 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
cross-referenced with information about the age,
gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose
cases are filed directly to the adult criminal court.
(3) The outcomes of cases involving minors who are
prosecuted in adult criminal courts, regardless of how
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageC
of?
adult court jurisdiction was initiated, including
whether the minor was acquitted or convicted, or
whether the case was dismissed and returned to
juvenile court, including sentencing outcomes,
cross-referenced with the age, gender, ethnicity, and
offense of the minors subject to these court actions.
. . . (Penal Code § 13012.5.)
Current law requires DOJ to collect "data pertaining to the
juvenile justice system for criminal history and statistical
purposes. This information shall serve to assist the department
in complying with the reporting requirement of subdivisions (c)
and (d) of Section 13012, measuring the extent of juvenile
delinquency, determining the need for and effectiveness of
relevant legislation, and identifying long-term trends in
juvenile delinquency. Any data collected pursuant to this
section may include criminal history information which may be
used by the department to comply with the requirements of
Section 602.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." (Penal
Code § 13010.5.)
Current law establishes the "Board of State and Community
Corrections" ("BSCC"), as specified. (Penal Code § 6024.)
Current law provides the following mission for the BSCC:
The mission of the board shall include providing
statewide leadership, coordination, and technical
assistance to promote effective state and local
efforts and partnerships in California's adult and
juvenile criminal justice system, including addressing
gang problems. This mission shall reflect the
principle of aligning fiscal policy and correctional
practices, including, but not limited to prevention,
intervention, suppression, supervision, and
incapacitation, to promote a justice investment
strategy that fits each county and is consistent with
the integrated statewide goal of improved public
safety through cost-effective, promising, and
evidence-based strategies for managing criminal
justice populations. (Penal Code § 6024(b).)
Current law establishes within the BSCC the "California Juvenile
Justice Data Working Group. The purpose of the working group is
to recommend options for coordinating and modernizing the
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageD
of?
juvenile justice data systems and reports that are developed and
maintained by state and county agencies," with a report that was
due and produced earlier this year. (Penal Code § 6032.)
This bill would require the BSCC to "prepare guidelines for
counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and
performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageE
of?
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Latino communities, especially Latino youth, are
increasingly singled out by the criminal justice
system. The extent of this problem is not well known
because of our state's flawed data collection system,
which does not consistently disaggregate race from
ethnicity in the justice system. With many Hispanics/
Latinos being classified as white or African American,
it is currently impossible to determine the full scope
of the unequal treatment of Latinos at key decision
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageF
of?
points in the juvenile justice system
The California Juvenile Justice Data Working Group
published an executive summary of their findings in
January 2016 entitled "Rebuilding California's
Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to
improve data collection, performance measures and
outcomes for California youth." The summary describes
the current Juvenile Detention Profile Survey as
lacking crucial information about juveniles in
detention, "such as race/ethnicity." Including race
and ethnicity is among the working group's
recommendations.
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG
%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf
The complete degree of Latino mistreatment is unknown
due to the lack of comprehensive information resulting
from inadequate data gathering practices. Currently,
most localities fail to separate race and ethnicity
categories when surveying Hispanic youth. For example,
most questionnaires do not allow a youth to identify
his or her race (physical characteristic) as black and
his ethnicity (cultural factor) as Hispanic. They are
forced to choose one or the other. Because of this,
many Latino youth are classifying themselves based
solely on their race (black, white, other) resulting
in the underreporting of Latinos in the justice
system.
2.What this Bill Would Do; Existing Efforts
This bill would require the BSCC to "prepare guidelines for
counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and
performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity."
The BSCC website states:
The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
has long recognized the significance of
disproportionality and its effect on California's
youth and families. The goal of the Reducing Racial
and Ethnic Disparities (R.E.D.)* Initiative is to
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageG
of?
create a fair and equitable juvenile justice system.
Through the leadership of the State Advisory Committee
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(SACJJDP) and the R.E.D. Subcommittee, the BSCC is
committed to reducing racial and ethnic disparity
across the justice system. The BSCC uses a
multi-faceted approach, with system-reform as the
framework. The R.E.D. activities are fluid and consist
of a three-track initiative framed by data-driven
decision making, implicit bias trainings, and
technical assistance, to include: 1) direct service
through grants aimed at reducing racial and ethnic
disparity; 2) education/awareness through our
implementation of educational mandates for grantees
and stakeholders; and, 3) support through both
resources and advocacy.
The State R.E.D. Subcommittee uses intentional,
collaborative, and multi-faceted approaches to
eliminate bias and reduce the overrepresentation of
youth of color coming into contact with the juvenile
justice system.
(*Previously Disproportionate Minority Contact - DMC)
In its July 15, 2013 assessment on California
Disproportionate Minority Contact report, the BSCC, through
its State DMC Subcommittee, explained:
California is committed to reducing racial and ethnic
disparities among youth in contact with the justice
system. The statewide population is diverse, boasting
a population that is majority (60%) people of color
according to the U.S. Census. As such, working toward
a climate of fairness and equity with respect to rates
of contact along the justice continuum is paramount.
In California, 13 counties have been engaged in
efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities among
youth who are in contact with the criminal and
juvenile justice systems. Through the
Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance
Project (DMC TAP), California has offered intensive
information, training, and technical assistance to
support these and other efforts associated with the
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageH
of?
reduction of DMC (Disproportionate Minority Contact).
The counties in receipt of support
services include six original DMC TAP sites, which
were funded between 2010 to 2013: Alameda County, Los
Angeles County, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara
County, and Santa Cruz. In 2011, seven additional
counties received specific TAP funding, which will
continue through 2014: Fresno County, Humboldt County,
Marin County, Orange County, Sacramento County,
Ventura County, and Yolo County. . . .
As one of the largest states in the U.S.,
California is divided into 58 counties. In local
California counties, there are 120 juvenile
detention facilities including 58 camps, 58
juvenile halls and four special purpose juvenile
halls (small facilities designed for short
periods of detention). Fifty-three (53) counties
have at least one juvenile hall. Thirty-three
counties have at
least one camp. Los Angeles County, which is
the largest in California in terms of general
population, has three juvenile halls and 19 camps. On
a typical day in the fourth quarter of 2011, nearly
8,000 juveniles were housed in local juvenile
detention facilities. Another 1,700 juveniles were
"detained" (i.e., receiving custody credits) in home
detention or another form of alternative confinement
(e.g., work programs, day schools and special purpose
juvenile halls).
The report notes that data disaggregated by race and gender were
not available from existing BSCC surveys for its studies. At
the time of the report, 13 counties received funding for the DMC
TAP. As part of that effort, in Alameda, Los Angles, San
Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Fresno, Humboldt,
Marin, Orange, Sacramento, Ventura and Yolo counties,
the W. Haywood Burns Institute (BI) used local data to
identify whether and to what extent youth of color are
overrepresented at various decision-making points in the
juvenile justice system. In San Diego, the San Diego
Association of Governments was the technical assistance
provider, and was "heavily guided by the local data provided by
the San Diego County Probation department and partners." With
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageI
of?
respect to these 13 participating counties, which collected race
and ethnicity data, the report notes, "(a)nalysis reveals
progressive improvements
with respect to decreasing disparity for several counties at
different decision points."
The findings of this report show that California's DMC
Counties have been able to, at various points, reduce
both the number of Youth of Color in contact with the
justice system and, at various points, reduce the
disproportionate rates at which specific racial and
ethnic groups are in contact with the justice system.
Data limitations challenge the development of
overarching observations regarding progress and
opportunity for improvement statewide; however, the
findings of this report show where specific
jurisdictions have been able to make important
and measurable strides toward reducing the
representation of Youth of Color in contact
with the justice system and reducing their contact
rates relative to their White counterparts.
3.Background: Juvenile Data a Longstanding Issue
Juvenile justice data collection in California has long been an
issue of concern among many juvenile justice advocates and
experts. In its September 1994 report, The Juvenile Crime
Challenge: Making Prevention a Priority<1>, the Little Hoover
Commission stated:
The current lack of data on costs across
jurisdictional levels, case outcomes and comprehensive
recidivism tracking makes it difficult to make
informed and rational policy decisions.
In its final report dated September of 1996, the California Task
Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Response<2>
stated:
---------------------------
<1> http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html.
<2> Created by AB 2428 (Epple) (Ch. 454, Stats. 1994), the Task
Force was chaired by Riverside District Attorney Grover Trask,
and comprised of statutorily-designated members.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageJ
of?
Throughout testimony to the Task Force and throughout
this report, reference is made to the lack of research
and statistics about the juvenile justice system . . .
This paucity of good information for decision-making
makes the work of the research and statistical
community in California's governmental agencies,
academic institutions, and private research firms much
more difficult. . . .
At the deepest end of the system, the chapter on
Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court cites a list of
unanswered research questions on fitness and waiver
policy in California. This list included such
questions as: "How many motions for waiver or fitness
hearings are filed? For which offenders and offenses?
What are the county-specific rates, and what is the
variation across counties?"
Twenty years later, in January 2016, a report produced by a
working group of the Board of State and Community Corrections
(required by AB 1468 in 2014) concluded that California
continues to have "critical gaps, fractures and omissions in the
total foundation and framework of the state's juvenile justice
data system." The report, entitled "Rebuilding California's
Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to Improve Data
Collection, Performance Measures and Outcomes for California
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageK
of?
Youth,"<3> states in part:
Increasingly across the nation, state and local
juvenile justice systems are expanding data
collection capacity to support effective and
evidence-based practices and to promote positive
outcomes for justice-involved youth. Several
factors help to explain this growth of interest in
data-driven approaches to juvenile justice, including:
The need for evidence to guide the
adoption of practices that are safe, effective
and unbiased.
The need to control justice system costs
by deploying cost-effective alternatives to
incarceration.
An expanding national body of research
on adolescent development that is changing
federal and state juvenile justice laws and practices.
Recognition that the juvenile justice
-----------------------
<3>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16
.pdf. (See also, Letter to the Legislature from Board Chair
Linda Penner accompanying the report, which stated in part, "The
Board itself
has not had input into, nor has it reviewed, the report. The
BSCC Executive Staff is reviewing the report and has identified
a number of issues that require further analysis before the
BSCC can provide any recommendations,
technical assistance or comments. These issues include concern
about policy and fiscal impacts at both the state and
county level, information technology feasibility, and
infrastructure changes within California's Executive Branch.
Although the report emphasizes the need for funding to
be made available to accomplish the proposed changes, the
BSCC is always mindful of changes that create new mandates for
counties. Finally, I believe that the Board would not support
Recommendation 6 to form a statutory Task Force, Board, or
Commission that is independent of (but attached to and staffed
by) the BSCC."
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Letter%20Penner %20to%20
Senate%20-%20JJDWG%20Final%20Report.pdf.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageL
of?
system must have adequate capacity to document
youth outcomes if its rehabilitative goals are to be
met.
Regrettably, California has allowed its
state-level juvenile justice data systems to
fall into a pattern of long-term decline. The
technology supporting the state's main juvenile
justice data bank is antiquated and cannot be
upgraded. There is no state-level capacity to track
many important youth outcomes including recidivism.
California's state juvenile justice data banks are
split between different agencies and are not
integrated with county-level data systems. An
overarching problem is that California has
failed to make any significant state investment
in modernizing its juvenile justice data capacity
for more than two decades. While state data
systems in other child-serving realms-like
education and child welfare-have benefitted from
major upgrades to meet contemporary needs, this
has not been the case for a California juvenile
justice system that processes more than 100,000
children each year. <4>
The Working Group described the following "critical deficiencies
in the state's overall capacity to collect, analyze and report
juvenile justice system data. In brief summary the gap analysis
found:
1. Inability to track important case and
outcome information on a comprehensive statewide
basis. The JCPSS data repository maintained by
the DOJ has severe shortcomings. Some important
juvenile justice processing events are not
collected through JCPSS, and the system cannot be
upgraded to capture additional data. There is no
statewide capacity to track important outcomes
like recidivism. As presently configured, JCPSS
does not support program evaluation or the
---------------------
<4>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG%20FINAL%2
01-11-16.pdf
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageM
of?
comprehensive assessment of key policy reforms,
such juvenile justice realignment.
2. Outdated technology. The JCPSS became
operational at DOJ in 2002. By modern standards,
this is an antiquated information system. It is
essentially "non-expandable." Recommendation 1
addresses the need to replace this outdated
technology.
3. Limits of the facility data reported to
BSCC; the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey.
BSCC collects data from county probation
departments on youth confined in local juvenile
halls and probation camps or ranches. The results
are posted on line in quarterly Juvenile
Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) reports. This is
the state's only central source of information on
children confined in local juvenile justice
facilities. JDPS reports are based on aggregate
(not individual) data, and many important
measures and data elements (such as
race/ethnicity and detailed offense information)
are not presently included.
4. Fracturing of data collection and
reporting responsibilities among different state
agencies. Lacking a dedicated state juvenile
justice agency, California's juvenile justice
data banks are dispersed among different state
agencies. Researchers and analysts seeking to
compose a coherent juvenile justice profile or
picture need to jump between websites of
different agencies. The information gleaned from
this multi-site search may be incomplete or
incompatible across systems. Economies of scale
might well be achieved by consolidating these
scattered juvenile justice data operations.
5. Disparity of data capacity compared to
other disciplines, lack of investment in juvenile
justice. Other state youth serving departments
or realms in California have improved the
capacity and utility of the data needed to
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageN
of?
support their operations. Statewide data and
case management systems at both the Department of
Education and the Department of Social Services
have been modernized and upgraded by supporting
state appropriations. By contrast, no
significant state investment or appropriation to
upgrade juvenile justice data capacity has been
made in recent history.
6. Lack of performance outcome measures for
the juvenile justice system. California lacks
standard and statewide outcome performance
outcome measures for the juvenile justice system.
An example referenced repeatedly in this report
is the lack of any standard or statewide
performance outcome measure for recidivism.
7. Transparency and availability of
statewide juvenile justice information.
California has no central website or data
clearinghouse for retrieval of juvenile justice
program, caseload, facility or performance
outcome information. Recommendation 5 addresses
this need as required by the enabling legislation
for the Working Group.
-- END -