BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1998 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Campos |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 16, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juveniles: Data Collection
HISTORY
Source: NOXTIN: Equal Justice for All
Prior Legislation:AB 1913 (Cardenas) - Ch. 353, Stats. 2000.
Support: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (prior
version); Chief Probation Officers of California;
Commonweal the Juvenile Justice Project; National
Association of Social Workers California Chapter
(prior version); Pacific Juvenile Defender Association
(prior version)
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require the Board of State and
Community Corrections, by January 1, 2018, to "develop
recommendations for best practices and standardizations for
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageB
of?
counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload and
performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity;" and 2)
consolidate and revise the data that is required to be collected
and reported for two major state juvenile justice grant
programs, as specified.
Juvenile Justice Data
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 §
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageC
of?
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
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageD
of?
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
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, by January 1, 2018, to
"develop recommendations for best practices and standardizations
for counties on how to disaggregate juvenile justice caseload
and performance and outcome data by race and ethnicity."
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act of 2000 ("JJCPA")
Current law establishes the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
Act of 2000 ("JJCPA"), including the establishment in each
county treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
(SLESF) to receive funding from the state, as specified.
(Government Code § 30061 et seq.)
Current law requires that of this funding, half goes to the
county or city and county "to implement a comprehensive
multiagency juvenile justice plan . . . .. The juvenile justice
plan shall be developed by the local juvenile justice
coordinating council in each county and city and county," as
specified. (Gov't Code § 30061(b)(4).)
This bill would revise this language to instead provide that the
plan described above shall be reviewed and updated (deleting
revised), and authorizes instead of requires a revised plan to
be approved by the county board of supervisors or mayor, as
specified.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageE
of?
This bill additionally provides that plan or updated plan be
submitted to the BSCC "in a format specified by the board that
consolidates the form of submission of the annual comprehensive
juvenile justice multiagency plan to be developed under this
chapter with the form for submission of the annual Youthful
Offender Block Grant plan that is required to be developed and
submitted pursuant to Section 1961 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code."
The bill also revises the reference in this section from
"juvenile justice plans" to a "multiagency juvenile justice
plan."
Current law requires that these plans include, but not be
limited to, all of the following components:
(i) An assessment of existing law enforcement, probation,
education, mental health, health, social services, drug and
alcohol, and youth services resources that specifically
target at-risk juveniles, juvenile offenders, and their
families.
(ii) An identification and prioritization of the
neighborhoods, schools, and other areas in the community
that face a significant public safety risk from juvenile
crime, such as gang activity, daylight burglary, late-night
robbery, vandalism, truancy, controlled substances sales,
firearm-related violence, and juvenile substance abuse and
alcohol use.
(iii) A local juvenile justice action strategy that
provides for a continuum of responses to juvenile crime and
delinquency and demonstrates a collaborative and integrated
approach for implementing a system of swift, certain, and
graduated responses for at-risk youth and juvenile
offenders.
(iv) Programs identified in clause (iii) that are proposed
to be funded pursuant to this subparagraph, including the
projected amount of funding for each program. (Gov't Code
§ 30061(b)(4).)
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageF
of?
This bill would revise these requirements to include a
description of the programs, strategies, or system enhancements
that are proposed to be funded.
Current law requires that programs proposed to be funded shall
satisfy all of the following requirements:
(i) Be based on programs and approaches that have been
demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and
addressing juvenile crime for any elements of response to
juvenile crime and delinquency, including prevention,
intervention, suppression, and incapacitation.
(ii) Collaborate and integrate services of all the
resources set forth in clause (i) of subparagraph (A), to
the extent appropriate.
(iii) Employ information sharing systems to ensure that
county actions are fully coordinated, and designed to
provide data for measuring the success of juvenile justice
programs and strategies.
(iv) Adopt goals related to the outcome measures that shall
be used to determine the effectiveness of the local
juvenile justice action strategy. (Gov't Code §
30061(b)(4)(B).)
This bill would revise this language to reference "programs,
strategies and system enhancements" instead of programs.
This bill also would delete requirement (iv) described above.
Current law requires juvenile justice plans under this program
to "also identify the specific objectives of the programs
proposed for funding and specified outcome measures to determine
the effectiveness of the programs and contain an accounting for
all program participants, including those who do not complete
the programs. Outcome measures of the programs proposed to be
funded shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
following:
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageG
of?
(i) The rate of juvenile arrests per 100,000 population.
(ii) The rate of successful completion of probation.
(iii) The rate of successful completion of restitution and
court-ordered community service responsibilities.
(iv) Arrest, incarceration, and probation violation rates
of program participants.
(v) Quantification of the annual per capita costs of the
program. (Gov't Code § 30061(b)(4)(C).)
This bill would delete this subparagraph, and replace it with
the following:
To assess the effectiveness of programs, strategies,
and system enhancements funded pursuant to this
paragraph, each county or city and county shall submit
by October 1 of each year a report to the county board
of supervisors and to the Board of State and Community
Corrections on the programs, strategies, and system
enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter. The
report shall be in a format specified by the board
that consolidates the report to be submitted pursuant
to this chapter with the annual report to be submitted
to the board for the Youthful Offender Block Grant
program, as required by subdivision (c) of Section
1961 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The report
shall include all of the following:
(i) An updated description of the programs,
strategies, and system enhancements that have been
funded pursuant to this chapter in the immediately
preceding fiscal year.
(ii) An accounting of expenditures during the
immediately preceding fiscal year for each program,
strategy, or system enhancement funded pursuant to
this chapter.
(iii) A description and expenditure report for programs,
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageH
of?
strategies, or system enhancements that have been
cofunded during the preceding fiscal year using
funds provided under this chapter and Youthful
Offender Block Grant funds provided under Chapter
1.5 (commencing with Section 1950) of Division 2.5
of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(iv) Countywide juvenile justice trend data available
from existing statewide juvenile justice data
systems or networks, as specified by the Board of
State and Community Corrections, including, but not
limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed,
petitions sustained, placements, incarcerations,
subsequent petitions, and probation violations, and
including, in a format to be specified by the
board, a summary description or analysis, based on
available information, of how the programs,
strategies, or system enhancements funded pursuant
to this chapter have or may have contributed to, or
influenced, the juvenile justice data trends
identified in the report.
This bill would require the BSCC, within 45 days of having
received the county's report, to post on its Internet Web site a
description or summary of the programs, strategies, or system
enhancements that have been supported by funds made available to
the county under this chapter.
Current law requires the BSCC to compile the local reports and,
by March 15, 2003, and annually thereafter, make a report to the
Governor and the Legislature on program expenditures within each
county and city and county from the appropriation under this
program, on the outcomes of the programs funded by this program
as specified, and the statewide effectiveness of the
comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice plans. (Gov't Code §
(b)(4)(E)(ii).)
This bill would revise this requirement to instead require BSCC
to compile the local reports and, by March 1 following the
October 1 submission and annually thereafter, make a report to
the Governor and the Legislature summarizing the programs,
strategies, and system enhancements and related expenditures
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageI
of?
made by each county and city and county from the appropriation
made for this program. "The annual report to the Governor and
the Legislature shall also summarize the countywide trend data
and any other pertinent information submitted by counties
indicating how the programs, strategies, or system enhancements
supported by funds appropriated under this chapter have or may
have contributed to, or influenced, the trends identified."
This bill would authorize the BSCC to "consolidate the annual
report to the Legislature required under this paragraph with the
annual report required by subdivision (d) of Section 1961 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code for the Youthful Offender Block
Grant program. The annual report shall be . . . posted for
access by the public on the Internet Web site of the board."
Youthful Offender Block Grant
Current law establishes the Youthful Offender Block Grant for
the purpose of enhancing "the capacity of county probation,
mental health, drug and alcohol, and other county departments to
provide appropriate rehabilitative and supervision services to
youthful offenders," as specified. (WIC § 1951.)
Current law requires each county to prepare and submit to the
BSCC for approval a Juvenile Justice Development Plan on its
proposed expenditures for the next fiscal year from the Youthful
Offender Block Grant Fund, as specified. (WIC § 1961(a).)
This bill would delete the requirement in this subdivision that
counties report on proposed expenditures, and instead would
require counties to report on proposed "programs, strategies and
system enhancements."
Current law requires that the plan required under this section
include all of the following:
(1) A description of the programs, placements, services, or
strategies to be funded by the YOBG.
(2) The proposed expenditures of block grant funds for each
program, placement, service, strategy, or for any other item,
activity, or operation.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageJ
of?
(3) A description of how the plan relates to or supports the
county's overall strategy for dealing with youthful offenders,
as specified.
(4) A description of any regional agreements or arrangements to
be supported by the YOBG.
(5) A description of how the programs, placements, services, or
strategies identified in the plan coordinate with JJCPA
programs. (WIC § 1961(a).)
This bill would delete paragraph (2) above, concerning proposed
expenditures of block grant funds.
Current law requires that the plan required by these provisions
be submitted as specified. (WIC § 1961(b).)
This bill would revise this language to update it, and to
provide that the plan conform to a format that consolidates with
the JJCPA plan, as specified.
Current law requires counties receiving YOBG grants to submit
annual reports, as specified, including all of the following:
1) A description of the programs, placements, services, and
strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding
fiscal year, and an accounting of all of the county's
expenditures of block grant funds for the preceding fiscal year.
2) Performance outcomes for the programs, placements, services,
and strategies supported by block grant funds in the preceding
fiscal year, including, at a minimum, the following:
a) The number of youth served including their
characteristics as to offense, age, gender, race, and
ethnicity.
b) As relevant to the program, placement, service, or
strategy, the rate of successful completion by youth.
c) For any program or placement supported by block grant
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageK
of?
funds, the arrest, rearrest, incarceration, and probation
violation rates of youth in any program or placement.
d) Quantification of the annual per capita cost of the
program, placement, strategy, or activity. (WIC §
1961(c).)
This bill would provide that these reports be consolidated with
the JJCPA report, as specified.
This bill would delete (a) and (b) above.
This bill would require "countywide juvenile justice trend data
available from existing statewide juvenile justice data systems
or networks, as specified by the board, including, but not
limited to, arrests, diversions, petitions filed, petitions
sustained, placements, incarcerations, subsequent petitions and
probation violations, and including, in a format to be specified
by the board, a summary description or analysis, based on
available information, of how the programs, strategies, and
system enhancements funded pursuant to this chapter have or may
have contributed to, or influenced, the juvenile justice data
trends identified in the report."
This bill would require a description and expenditure report for
programs, strategies, and system enhancements that have been
co-funded during the preceding fiscal year using YOBG and JJCPA
funds, as specified.
This bill would make additional technical conforming changes to
this section.
Current law requires BSCC to prepare and make available to the
public on its Internet Web site summaries of the annual county
YOBG reports, as specified. (WIC § 1961(d).)
This bill would revise these requirements, including requiring
that the annual report to also summarize the countywide trend
data and any other pertinent information submitted by counties
indicating how the programs, strategies, and system enhancements
supported by YOBG funds have or may have contributed to, or
influenced, the trends identified. This bill also would give the
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageL
of?
BSCC authority to consolidate this annual report with the report
required for JJCPA, as specified.
Current law authorizes BSCC to modify the performance outcome
measures specified in this section, as specified. (WIC §
1961(e).)
This bill deletes this authority.
Current statute provides that the BSCC, "in consultation with
the Division of Juvenile Facilities, may provide technical
assistance to counties, including, but not limited to, regional
workshops, prior to issuing any Request for Proposal," and
provides that the BSCC "may monitor and inspect any programs or
facilities supported by" YOBG block grant funds, and "may
enforce violations of grant requirements with suspensions or
cancellations of grant funds."
This bill revises this provision to update its references, to
delete the reference to the Division of Juvenile Facilities, and
to state that the BSCC may provide technical assistance "for the
purpose of encouraging and promoting compliance with plan and
report requirements" described in this bill, as specified.
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;
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageM
of?
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
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageN
of?
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
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageO
of?
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.Recent Amendments
This bill was recently amended to revise its language concerning
the BSCC addressing how juvenile justice caseload and
performance and outcome data might best be disaggregated by race
and ethnicity. More significantly, the bill was amended to
include revisions to reporting language included in two
significant juvenile justice state funding programs: the
Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, and the Youthful Offender
Block Grant. In April of last year, a Working Group of the BSCC
on Juvenile Justice Data recommended revising these existing
provisions, stating in part:
The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA),
adopted in 2000, supports an array of local youth
crime prevention and juvenile justice supervision
programs. The Youthful Offender Block Grant
(YOBG) provides counties with resources to
manage the caseload of non-violent juvenile
offenders shifted from state to local control
under California's juvenile justice realignment
law (Senate Bill 81, Statues of 2007). In
Fiscal Year 2013-14 these grant programs provided
counties with $220 million in juvenile justice system
funds.
The need to review JJCPA and YOBG reporting
requirements was driven by a growing recognition
that current statutory reporting requirements
are producing disjointed and unreliable data that
are not useful in assessing the overall
performance of the grants or the juvenile
justice systems they support. Additionally, a
2012 report from the California State Auditor
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageP
of?
was critical of the approach used to report
outcomes for the YOBG program, citing poor
methodology and flaws in sampling.<1>
3.Support
Commonweal, which supports this bill, states in part:
Nearly all of the proposed YOBG and JJCPA changes in
AB 1998 derive from the recommendations of the
Juvenile Justice Data Working Group. As constituted by
AB 1468 in 2014, the JJDWG was charged with
recommending a plan "for improving the current
juvenile justice reporting requirements" of the two
grant programs "including streamlining and
consolidating current requirements without sacrificing
meaningful data collection". Members of the Working
Group included representatives of affected state
agencies (BSCC, DOJ, DJJ), probation (CPOC), courts
(Judicial Council), counties (CSAC), research experts
and children's advocacy organizations. The JJDWG
spent six months reviewing the grant programs and
submitted its report and recommendations to BSCC in
April of 2015. . . .
In summary, the JJDWG drew the following observations
and conclusions upon review of current JJCPA and YOBG
plan and report requirements.
" There is needless duplication of county
effort in having to produce separate plans and
annual reports to BSCC for two grant programs
having similar (if not identical) target
populations and juvenile justice system support
goals. This is also true of the current
requirement that BSCC must produce separate
annual reports to the Legislature on the two
overlapping grant programs.
----------------------
<1>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%204-30-15%20JJCPA-YOBG%20
Report%20FINAL %205.15%20cc.pdf.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageQ
of?
" The outcome measures specified in the YOBG
and JJCPA statutes are flawed because they lack
standard definitions; they are not adequately
supported by available data; and they are of
limited or poor utility to the juvenile justice
agencies providing the information and to the
policymakers reviewing it. (For example, reports
of probation violations, based on no standard
protocols for what violations or behaviors should
be counted, have very low value as indicators of
youth or program success).
" Given these factors, the JJDWG made a number
of recommendations to improve the reporting
requirements for the grant programs "without
sacrificing meaningful data collection", as
summarized below.
. . . In our view the statutory changes for the YOBG
and JJCPA grant programs, as contained in AB 1998,
include and will implement nearly all of the
grant-related recommendations of the broadly
representative Juvenile Justice Data Working Group.
The Working Group's recommended elimination of
unworkable statutory outcome measures is
counter-balanced by an alternate reporting approach
that is viewed as more relevant and informative, using
data-based indicators of grant program effectiveness
in each participating county. In all, the revisions
as proposed will yield a net reduction in workload and
will eliminate needless duplication of forms and
reports, both for counties and for BSCC (by
consolidating plans and reports into single-submission
formats). In short, we believe the YOBG/JJCPA grant
provisions as proposed for inclusion in AB 1998
respond adequately to the Legislature's interest in
"streamlining and consolidating grant report
requirements without sacrificing meaningful data
collection" (excerpt from the AB 1468 mandate setting
up the JJDWG). If the revisions fail to move forward,
counties will remain pinned down with outcome measures
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageR
of?
that JJDWG expert-group has determined to be flawed
and ineffective as indicators of grant program success
or failure, and both counties and BSCC will continue
to generate duplicate reports that could otherwise be
consolidated for better efficiency.
For these reasons we urge your support of AB 1998 with
respect of the JJCPA and YOBG grant reporting changes.
1.Background - Data by Race and Ethnicity
This bill would require the BSCC to "develop recommendations for
best practices and standardizations 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
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.
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageS
of?
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
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageT
of?
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
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
AB 1998 (Campos ) PageU
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.
5.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<2>, 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<3>
stated:
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
----------------------
<2> http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html.
<3> 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 ) PageV
of?
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." <4>
-- END -
---------------------------
<4>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16
.pdf.