BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2005 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Ridley-Thomas |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juveniles: Out-of-State Placement
HISTORY
Source: Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice;
Youth Law Center
Prior Legislation:SB 933 (M. Thompson) Ch. 311, Stats. 1998
Support: Aspiranet; California Alliance for Youth and Community
Justice; California Catholic Conference; California
Correctional Peace Officers Association; Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Communities United for
Restorative Youth Justice; Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights; Fair Chance Project; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children
Opposition:Chief Probation Officers of California
Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that, with respect to the
placement of delinquent wards in private, out-of-state
residential facilities, 1) the court must make specified
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageB
of?
findings by "clear and convincing evidence"; 2) the court must
find that a case plan for the minor demonstrates that the
out-of-state placement is the most appropriate and is in the
best interests of the minor, and that in-state facilities or
programs have been considered and are unavailable or inadequate
to meet the needs and best interests of the minor; and 3) the
existing authority of the court to place a delinquent ward in a
juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp shall not be
construed to authorize a court to commit a minor to one of these
facilities located outside of the state.
Under current law, the purpose of juvenile court law "is to
provide for the protection and safety of the public and each
minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to
preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever
possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her
parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the
safety and protection of the public." (Welfare and Institutions
Code ("WIC") § 202.)
Current law provides that when a minor is adjudged a delinquent
ward of the court, "the court may make any reasonable orders for
the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and
support of the minor, . . ." (WIC § 727.)
Current law provides that it is the sole responsibility of
probation to determine the appropriate placement for the ward
once the court issues a placement order. In determination of the
appropriate placement for the ward, the probation officer is
required to consider any recommendations of the child and
family. The probation agency may place the minor or nonminor in
any of the following:
The approved home of a relative or the approved home of
a nonrelative, extended family member, as specified.
A foster home, the approved home of a resource family,
or a home or facility in accordance with the federal Indian
Child Welfare Act, as specified.
A suitable licensed community care facility, as
specified.
A foster family agency, in a suitable program in a
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageC
of?
family home, as specified.
Commencing January 1, 2017, a minor or nonminor
dependent may be placed in a short-term residential
treatment center, as specified. (WIC § 727 (a) (4).)
Out-of-State Placements
Current law provides that a court "shall not order the placement
of a minor in an out-of-state group home, unless the court
finds, in its order of placement, that all of the following
conditions have been met:
(1) The out-of-state group home is licensed or
certified for the placement of minors by an agency of the
state in which the minor will be placed.
(2) The out-of-state group home meets the requirements
of Section 7911.1 of the Family Code.
(3) In-state facilities or programs have been
determined to be unavailable or inadequate to meet the
needs of the minor. (WIC § 361.21(a).)
Current law requires that at least every six months, the court
shall review each out-of-state placement in order to determine
compliance with this section. (WIC § 361.21(b).)
Current law provides that a county shall not be entitled to
receive or expend any public funds for the placement of a minor
in an out-of-state group home unless these requirements are met.
(WIC § 361.21(c).)
Current law provides that "when the court orders the care,
custody, and control of the minor to be under the supervision of
the probation officer for foster care placement, . . . the
decision regarding choice of placement, . . . shall be based
upon selection of a safe setting that is the least restrictive
or most family like, and the most appropriate setting that meets
the individual needs of the minor and is available, in proximity
to the parent's home, consistent with the selection of the
environment best suited to meet the minor's special needs and
best interests. The selection shall consider, in order of
priority, placement with relatives, tribal members, and foster
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageD
of?
family, group care, and residential treatment . . . . " (WIC §
727.1(a).)
Current law further provides that unless otherwise authorized by
law, the court may not order the placement of a delinquent minor
"in a private residential facility or program that provides
24-hour supervision, outside of the state, unless the court
finds, in its order of placement, that all of the following
conditions are met:
(1) In-state facilities or programs have been determined to be
unavailable or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor.
(2) The State Department of Social Services or its designee
has performed initial and continuing inspection of the
out-of-state residential facility or program and has either
certified that the facility or program meets the greater of all
licensure standards required of group homes or of short-term
residential treatment centers operated in California, or that
the department has granted a waiver to a specific licensing
standard upon a finding that there exists no adverse impact to
health and safety," as specified. (WIC § 727.1(b).)
(3) The requirements of Section 7911.1 of the Family Code are
met.
This bill would revise this provision to require the court to
establish these conditions by "clear and convincing evidence."
This bill further would revise condition (1) above to instead
require the court to find that the "case plan for the minor,
developed in strict accordance with Section 706.6, demonstrates
that the out-of-state placement is the most appropriate and is
in the best interests of the minor and that in-state facilities
or programs have been considered and are unavailable or
inadequate to meet the needs and best interests of the minor."
This bill would add a cross-reference to this section in Welfare
and Institutions Code section 727.4, concerning notice of
hearings.
Current law provides that when a minor is adjudged a delinquent
ward of the court, the court may order any of the types of
treatment referred to above, and as an additional alternative,
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageE
of?
may commit the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, or
forestry camp. If there is no county juvenile home, ranch, camp,
or forestry camp within the county, the court may commit the
minor to the county juvenile hall. (WIC § 730.)
This bill would revise this provision to state that, this
"subdivision shall not be construed to authorize a court to
commit a minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp
located outside of the state."
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.
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageF
of?
(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
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Unlike the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile
justice system is primarily focused on rehabilitation
rather than punishment. To this end, counties and
state juvenile facilities provide significantly more
education, treatment, and counseling programs to
juvenile offenders as compared to adult offenders.
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageG
of?
Taking into account the recommendations of probation
department staff, juvenile court judges decide whether
to make the offender a ward of the court and,
ultimately, determine the appropriate placement and
treatment for the juvenile. Placement decisions are
based on such factors as the juvenile's offense, prior
record, criminal sophistication, and the county's
capacity to provide treatment.
Juveniles are typically placed in a county facility
for treatment, such as juvenile hall or camp, or
supervised at home. Some juveniles are placed in
out-of-state facilities. In 2015, approximately 235
juveniles under the jurisdiction of county probation
departments were living out-of-state.
Placing juveniles in out-of-state facilities is
counter to the state's goal of rehabilitation. To
improve outcomes for juveniles affected by the
criminal justice system, California must keep them
near their family, loved ones, and support networks.
According to best practices, allowing people to remain
close to their support network while incarcerated
helps their transition after release and reduces
recidivism. Placing a juvenile in out-of-state
facilities should only be used as a last resort.
2.Background
The placement of children who are wards of the court in
out-of-state facilities has long been a concern of state and
local policymakers. As explained in an extensive article
published in ProPublica in December of last year:
More than 15 years ago, California was shaken by a
tragedy that grew out of sending children out of state
with little oversight to ensure their safety.
On March 2, 1998, a 16-year-old from Sacramento named
Nicholaus Contreraz died at the Arizona Boys Ranch, a
"tough-love" boot camp in the desert. In the days
prior, the camp's staff had forced him to endure
physical exercises so intense, in heat so extreme,
that his body began to rebel against itself. He
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageH
of?
ultimately collapsed and succumbed to a respiratory
infection. His chest cavity had swelled with
two-and-a-half quarts of pus.
California officials immediately demanded to know why
a boy born in the state capital had been sent to
Arizona as punishment for a juvenile offense. It
turned out Contreraz was one of roughly 1,000
California children in who had been sent to boot
camps, juvenile detention centers and other programs
in other states. California lawmakers quickly
discovered the wave of children sent across state
lines had been set in motion by two key factors:
Juvenile justice judges and probation officials in the
state's 58 counties were appalled by conditions in
California's notoriously violent youth prisons.
Sending California's children out of state seemed
safer. Also, it was often cheaper.
After Contreraz's death, then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed
a bill prohibiting California children from being sent
to out-of-state facilities that permitted corporal
punishment or barred parental visits. Wilson put the
California Department of Social Services in charge of
enforcing that mandate, and quickly California
children were returned home.
But now, the tide has been reversed and the reasons
are familiar enough. California's detention facilities
grew so bad they have been all but eradicated. And its
group homes proved such failures that the latest
reform plan calls for drastically limiting them, as
well.<1>
California statutes reflect the legislative scrutiny of these
placements that occurred in the 1990s. Legislative findings and
declarations concerning placing wards of the court children
out-of-state placements include:
---------------------------
<1> Sapien, Out of Options, California Ships Hundreds of
Troubled Children Out of State, ProPublica (December 2015)
(https://www.propublica.org/article/california-ships-hundreds-of-
troubled-children-out-of-state.)
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageI
of?
The health and safety of California children placed by a
county social services agency or probation department out
of state pursuant to the provisions of the Interstate
Compact on the Placement of Children are a matter of
statewide concern.
The Legislature therefore affirms its intention that the
State Department of Social Services has full authority to
require an assessment and placement recommendation by a
county multidisciplinary team prior to placement of a child
in an out-of-state group home, to investigate allegations
of child abuse or neglect of minors so placed, and to
ensure that out-of-state group homes, accepting California
children, meet all California group home licensing
standards.
The Legislature also affirms its intention that, on and
after January 1, 2017, the licensing standards applicable
to out-of-state group homes certified by the department
shall be those required of short-term residential treatment
centers operated in this state. (Family Code § 7911.)
The State Department of Social Services (DSS) or its designee is
required to investigate any threat to the health and safety of
children placed by a California county social services agency or
probation department in an out-of-state group home pursuant to
the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children. "This authority shall include the authority to
interview children or staff in private or review their file at
the out-of-state facility or wherever the child or files may be
at the time of the investigation. . . . (DSS) or its designee
shall require certified out-of-state group homes to comply with
the reporting requirements applicable to group homes licensed in
California . . . for each child in care regardless of whether he
or she is a California placement, . . . .(Family Code § 7911.1.)
DSS also is required to "perform initial and continuing
inspection of out-of-state group homes in order to either
certify that the out-of-state group home meets all licensure
standards required of group homes operated in California or that
the department has granted a waiver to a specific licensing
standard upon a finding that there exists no adverse impact to
health and safety." (Family Code § 7911.1(c).)
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageJ
of?
A county must "obtain an assessment and placement recommendation
by a county multidisciplinary team prior to placement of a child
in an out-of-state group home facility." (Family Code §
7911.1(d).) "A multidisciplinary team shall consist of
participating members from county social services, county mental
health, county probation, county superintendents of schools, and
other members as determined by the county. . . .Participants
shall have knowledge or experience in the prevention,
identification, and treatment of child abuse and neglect cases,
and shall be qualified to recommend a broad range of services
related to child abuse or neglect." (Family Code § 7911.1(f).)
Another statute states that the Legislature "affirms its
intention that children placed by a county social services
agency or probation department in out-of-state group homes be
accorded the same personal rights and safeguards of a child
placed in a California group home," and that the Interstate
Compact on the Placement of Children administrator "may
temporarily suspend any new placements in an out-of-state group
home, for a period not to exceed 100 days, pending the
completion of an investigation, . . . regarding a threat to the
health and safety of children in care. During any suspension
period the department or its designee shall have staff daily
onsite at the out-of-state group home." (Family Code § 7912.)
3.Support
The California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice (CAYCJ),
which supports this bill, states in part:
The proposed change in AB 2005 is essential to improve
outcomes for California youth impacted by the criminal
justice system. Our state must attempt, at all costs,
to keep youth near family and their support systems.
Best practices speak to how important retaining a
connection to one's community is when returning from
detention. This bill allows young people to stay
closer to their networks of support. In turn, young
people are able to defeat the struggles our state
faces with high levels of recidivism. When youth are
sent to out of state facilities they are far away from
family and community. This results in further
isolation and can lead to detrimental outcomes for
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageK
of?
youth. Support must be gathered at all levels for
young people to successfully reenter our communities.
Not only is family a source of support, but so are
community-based organizations and other community
resources that creative a eco-system of support.
4.Opposition
The Chief Probation Officers of California, which opposes this
bill, states in part:
While we appreciate the stated intent of the bill and
share the desire to place and work with kids locally,
there are times that out of state placements are most
appropriate given the specific factors involved with
the minor. We are concerned that this bill will
further exacerbate placement challenges that could
result in the minor remaining in the juvenile hall
longer, which is not in the best interests of the
minor.
Based on the amendments taken May 31, our concerns
center around the new language relative to the legal
criteria of clear and convincing evidence which was
added as well as the language change in WIC
727.1(b)(1) which is redundant to what is already
included in WIC 706.6. Further, WIC Section 727.1 is
not a hearing; rather it is the criteria for placing a
minor out of State. Therefore, there is no need to add
this section to WIC 727.4 as the bill now reads.
We share (the author's) desire to make placement
decisions that are in the best interests of the safety
and well-being of the minor. We believe existing law
takes into account the myriad of factors involved in
these decisions and already sets forth a process with
probation, the courts, minor and involved parties in
making these determinations.
-- END -
AB 2005 (Ridley-Thomas ) PageL
of?