BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 124
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
SB
124 (Leno) - As Amended June 1, 2015
As Proposed to be Amended in Commitee
SUMMARY: Establishes standards and protocols for the placement
of juvenile offenders in solitary confinement. Specifically,
this bill:
SB 124
Page 2
1)Prohibits the use of solitary confinement on a person confined
in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself,
herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is
gravely disabled.
2)Provides that a person confined in any secure state or local
juvenile facility, and who is not an imminent danger to
himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder
or who is gravely disabled, shall be subject to solitary
confinement only if all of the following are true:
a) The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of
harm to the security of the facility, to himself or
herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental
disorder;
b) All other less-restrictive options to address the risk
have been attempted and exhausted;
c) The performance of solitary confinement is done in
accordance with the following principles:
i) The person may be held in solitary confinement only
for the minimum time required to address the risk, and
for a period of time that does not compromise the mental
and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to
exceed four hours. The person shall be returned to
regular programming or placed in individualized
programming that does not involve solitary confinement;
SB 124
Page 3
ii) If a person who is released from solitary
confinement and is returned to regular or individualized
programming poses an immediate and substantial risk of
harm to himself or herself, or others, he or she may be
placed back into solitary confinement only under the
standards and protocols in this bill;
iii) If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of
harm to himself or herself that is not the result of a
mental disorder, the condition shall be monitored closely
by custody staff of the juvenile facility; and,
iv) Consecutive periods of solitary confinement in
excess of four hours shall be prohibited.
3)Prohibits the use of solitary confinement for the purposes of
discipline, punishment, coercion, or retaliation by staff.
4)Requires each local and state juvenile facility to document
the usage of solitary confinement for each incident when
solitary confinement is used, including all of the following:
a) The name, age, gender and race of the person subject to
solitary confinement;
b) The date and time the person was placed in solitary
confinement;
c) The date and time the person was released from solitary
SB 124
Page 4
confinement;
d) The name and position of the person authorizing the
placement of the person in solitary confinement;
e) The names of staff involved in the incident leading to
the use of solitary confinement;
f) A description of circumstances leading to use of
solitary confinement;
g) A description of alternative actions and sanctions
attempted and found unsuccessful; and,
h) The dates and times when staff checked in on the person
when he or she was in solitary confinement, and the
person's behavior during the check.
5)States that the records created as documentation of each
solitary confinement incident and voluntary time outs shall be
available for public inspection pursuant to the California
Public Records Act.
6)Provides that if a state or local juvenile facility currently
documents the usage of solitary confinement consistent with
the requirement in this bill, then duplicative documentation
shall not be required.
SB 124
Page 5
7)Allows a person confined in a juvenile facility to request a
voluntary time out, as defined, for no longer than two hours.
During any voluntary time out, the person must participate in
all programming and meals. The person may end his or her
voluntary time out at any point upon notifying a staff member.
Voluntary time outs must be documented and include the name
of the person requesting the time out, his or her signature,
when the voluntary time out began and when it ended.
8)Clarifies that this bill's provisions are not intended to
limit the use of single-person rooms or cells for the housing
of persons in juvenile facilities.
9)Defines the following terms:
a) "Juvenile facility" includes any of the following:
i) A juvenile hall;
ii) A juvenile camp or ranch;
iii) A facility of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Facilities
(DJJ);
iv) A regional youth educational facility;
SB 124
Page 6
v) A youth correctional center; or,
vi) Any other local or state facility used for the
confinement of minors or wards.
b) "Minor" means a person who is any of the following:
i) A person under 18 years of age;
ii) A person under the maximum age of juvenile court
jurisdiction who is confined in a juvenile facility; or,
iii) A person under the jurisdiction of CDCR, DJJ.
c) "Solitary confinement" means the placement of an
incarcerated person in a locked sleep room or cell alone
with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards,
correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary
confinement does not include confinement of a person in a
single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room
confinement necessary for required institutional
operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes,
showering, unit movements, or protection against
communicable diseases.
SB 124
Page 7
d) "Ward" means a person who has been declared a ward of
the court as provided.
e) "Voluntary time out" means a brief period of time in a
sleep room or cell at the written and signed request of the
person confined in a juvenile facility.
10)Changes to the composition of local juvenile justice
commissions to require two or more of the members to be
parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth and one
member to be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist,
or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in
adolescent development.
11)Adds two members to the regional juvenile justice commissions
and requires two or more of the members to be parents or
guardians of previously incarcerated youth and one member to
be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed
clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent
development.
12)Requires a juvenile justice commission, as a part of its
inspection of jails, lock ups and facilities used for
confinement, to review records relating to the use of solitary
confinement, as defined.
13)Requires a juvenile justice commission to report the results
of its inspection and its recommendations to the county board
of supervisors, in addition to the juvenile court and the
Board of State and Community Corrections.
SB 124
Page 8
14)States that the report shall be presented annually as part of
a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of
supervisors, and may be published on the county government's
Internet Web site.
15)States the Legislative finding that in order to protect the
privacy and medical information of persons confined in secure
state and local juvenile facilities and held in solitary
confinement, it is necessary that identifying information
about those persons be kept confidential, thus justifying
exemption of this information from disclosure under the
California Public Records Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)States that the purpose of the juvenile court system 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §
202, subd. (a).)
2)Provides that minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in
SB 124
Page 9
conformity with the interests of public safety and protection,
receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with
their best interest, that holds them accountable for their
behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances.
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (b).)
3)Authorizes minors under the age of 18 years to be adjudged to
be a ward of the court for violating any law of this state or
of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of
this state defining crime, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602.)
4)Provides that when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on
the ground that he or she is delinquent, the court may make
any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision,
custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor,
including medical treatment, subject to further order of the
court, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 727, subd. (a).)
5)Existing law authorizes the court to place a ward of the court
in a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, secure
juvenile home, or the Division of Juvenile Facilities, as
specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726.)
6)Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC)
to adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance
of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, §210.)
7)Provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice
commission consisting of not less than seven and no more than
15 citizens. Two or more of the members shall be persons who
are between 14 and 21 years of age, provided there are
SB 124
Page 10
available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able
to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner
satisfactory to the appointing authority. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 225)
8)Authorizes, in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission,
the boards of supervisors of two or more adjacent counties to
agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission
consisting of at least 8 citizens, two of whom to be between
14 and 21 years of age if available, and having a sufficient
number of members so that their appointment may be equally
apportioned between the participating counties. (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 226.)
9)States that it shall be the duty of a juvenile justice
commission to inquire into the administration of the juvenile
court law in the county or region in which the commission
serves. For this purpose the commission shall have access to
all publicly administered institutions authorized or whose use
is authorized by this chapter situated in the county or
region, shall inspect such institutions no less frequently
than once a year, and may hold hearings. A judge of the
juvenile court shall have the power to issue subpoenas
requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and production
of papers at hearings of the commission. A juvenile justice
commission shall annually inspect any jail or lockup within
the county that was used to confine a minor for more than 24
hours in the preceding calendar year and issue a written
report of the results of such inspection together with its
recommendations to the juvenile court and to the Board of
Corrections. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 229.)
SB 124
Page 11
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Solitary
confinement is an extremely harmful measure, widely condemned
as torture, but unfortunately it is one that continues to be
used in the California juvenile justice system under various
programmatic titles. Solitary confinement has not been shown
to have any rehabilitative or treatment value, and the United
Nations has called upon all member countries to ban its use
completely on minors. It is a practice that endangers mental
health and increases risk of suicide, and is often used as a
method to control a correctional environment, and not for any
rehabilitative purpose. It does not properly address
disciplinary issues and more often, it increases these
behaviors in youth, especially those with mental health
conditions. In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released a study of juvenile
facilities across the country which found that 50% of youth
who committed suicide where in solitary confinement at the
time of their suicide. Further, 62% of the suicide victims
had a history of isolation.
"SB 124 does not ban the use of solitary confinement
completely as many other jurisdictions in the world have done,
it merely limits the use of solitary to instances where there
is an actual threat to the safety of staff, other youth, or
the general security of the facility. This bill sets a
reasonable statewide baseline to protect youth, and it is long
overdue. California is now behind 20 other states in banning
punitive solitary confinement for youth, it is time that we
SB 124
Page 12
create a statewide policy governing this practice in order to
provide a safer environment for youth and staff, better
rehabilitative outcomes for youth, and protection for our
counties against costly and damaging lawsuits stemming from
the overuse of solitary confinement."
2)Background: According to the background materials provided by
the author, "Title 15 regulations fail to provide specific
guidelines around the use of solitary confinement, oftentimes
used interchangeably with terms like 'separation.' Title 15
charges facility administrators to develop written policies
and procedures regarding the use of separation, but does not
provide additional guidance or limitations except that
'separated youth shall not be denied normal privileges at the
facility, except when necessary to accomplish the objectives
of separation.' Some juvenile corrections officials have
denied that they use solitary confinement because the practice
of isolating youth from 21-23 hours a day, for weeks and
months at a time, exists under different definitions and
programmatic titles in California's juvenile facilities.
"The use of solitary confinement is clearly documented in both
state and local juvenile facilities. Despite a longstanding
consent decree in effect since 2004, an internal CDCR audit
found continuing abuses in the Division of Juvenile Facilities
as late as 2011, including youth locked up in their cells for
more than 23 hours a day. Additionally, in a recent 2014
report released by Barry Krisberg of the Warren Institute at
UC Berkeley, youth in the most restrictive current program at
DJJ known as the "Behavior Treatment Program," were required
to receive only 3 hours outside of their cell, and were
typically there for approximately 60 days. Despite some
improvements in state conditions since the 2011 audit,
California cannot rely solely on a temporary consent decree,
and it is critical that statutory definitions and parameters
on the use of isolation be established going forward. At the
local level, the abuse of solitary confinement has been
alarming. A federal class-action lawsuit has been filed
against Contra Costa's juvenile hall for youth with
SB 124
Page 13
disabilities who were placed in solitary confinement and
denied education as a punishment. That case was recently
settled by the county, and the conditions of the settlement
are nearly identical to the provisions of SB 124, clearly
demonstrating that the parameters established in the bill can
be implemented at the county level. [Footnotes omitted.]"
3)Consent-Decree: Farrell v. Cate: Historically, the use of
solitary confinement in DJJ, formerly the California Youth
Authority (CYA), has posed significant issues and concerns.
In 2003 two mental-health experts conducted a study and
reported on the CYA's programs and services. (See Eric Trubin
& Raymond Patterson, Report of Findings of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Treatment Services to Youth in California
Youth Authority Facilities (Dec. 2003).) According to the
report, "[w]ards . . . spend vast amounts of time alone in
their cells, a practice that extends not just to those being
punished in lockup, but also to those on suicide watch.
Isolating individuals with mental-health issues can exacerbate
their problems. When wards do attempt suicide, their
punishment is often isolation and restriction to cells for
days at a time. Once isolated, these wards are monitored via
camera while sequestered in rooms that are often dirty and
sometimes contain fixtures that can be used to commit suicide.
In four facilities, the minimal medical attention provided
occurs while such wards are locked in cages. In one
particularly unsettling account at the Chaderjian facility, a
ward on suicide watch who had been diagnosed with severe
depression, schizophrenia, and a personality disorder only
received a five-minute visit with a psychiatrist each day."
(Benvenue, Turning Troubled Teens Into Career Criminals: Can
California Reform the System to Rehabilitate Its Youth
Offenders? 38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2007) pp. 48-49.)
As part of comprehensive litigation involving conditions at
CYA that commenced in 2003, Farrell v. Cate, CYA, now DJJ, is
required to adopt reformed methods for dealing with
containment or isolation of wards. (See Consent Decree,
Farrell v. Allen (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2004, No. RG
SB 124
Page 14
03079344) < http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/farrellcd2.pdf >;
Defendant's Notice of Filing DJJ's Safety and Welfare Remedial
Plan, Farrell v. Hickman (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2006, No.
RG 03079344)
< http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/SafetyPlanFinal.pdf >.)
The consent decree requires the DJJ to provide wards with
adequate and effective care, treatment and rehabilitation
services, including reducing violence and the use of force,
improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of
lock-ups and providing better education programs. The
on-going case is overseen by a Special Master who issues
quarterly reports. The most recent report, dated March 2015,
is promising, showing that DJJ is making significant progress
in reducing lengthy lock-ups of juveniles.
This bill would enact minimum standards and protocol statewide
for the use of solitary confinement of juveniles which would
provide additional protections once the consent decree is
lifted.
4)Regulations Pertaining to Juvenile Detention Facilities: The
California Code of Regulations Title 15, Minimum Standards for
Juvenile Facilities, provides guidelines on the isolation or
separation of juveniles from the general population.
"Separation" is defined in the regulations as limiting a
youth's participation in regular programming for a specific
purpose.
Section 1354 of Title 15 requires the facility administrator
to develop and implement written policies and procedures
addressing the separation of youth for reasons that include,
but are not be limited to, medical and mental health
conditions, assaultive behavior, disciplinary consequences and
protective custody. This section prohibits the denial of
normal privileges available at the facility, except when
necessary to accomplish the objective of separation. The
policies and procedures shall ensure a daily review of
separated youth to determine if separation remains necessary.
SB 124
Page 15
Section 1359 of Title 15 requires the facility administrator,
in cooperation with the responsible physician, to develop and
implement written policies and procedures governing the use of
"safety rooms." The section provides that the safety room
shall be used to hold only those youth who present an
immediate danger to themselves or others, who exhibit behavior
which results in the destruction of property, or reveals the
intent to cause self-inflicted physical harm. A safety room
shall not be used for punishment or discipline, or as a
substitute for treatment. This section specifies that the
policies and procedures shall:
(a) Include provisions for administration of necessary
nutrition and fluids, access to a toilet, and suitable
clothing to provide for privacy;
(b) Provide for approval of the facility manager, or designee,
before a youth is placed into a safety room;
(c) Provide for continuous direct visual supervision and
documentation of the youth's behavior and any staff
interventions every 15 minutes, with actual time recorded;
(d) Provide that the youth shall be evaluated by the facility
manager, or designee, every four hours;
(e) Provide for immediate medical assessment, where
appropriate, or an assessment at the next daily sick call;
(f) Provide that a youth shall be medically cleared for
continued retention every 24 hours;
(g) Provide that a mental health opinion is secured within 24
hours; and,
(h) Provide a process for documenting the reason for
placement, including attempts to use less restrictive means of
control, and decisions to continue and end placement.
SB 124
Page 16
Section 1390 provides, when separating the youth for
disciplinary reasons, discipline shall be imposed at the least
restrictive level which promotes the desired behavior and
shall not include corporal punishment, group punishment,
physical or psychological degradation.
While the regulations provide some guidance on the use of
solitary confinement on juveniles, there is no specified limit
on how long a juvenile may be placed in isolation. This bill
provides that juveniles may be placed in solitary confinement
for four hours at a time as long as certain procedures and
policies are met.
5)Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Law Suit: Recently, Contra
Costa County settled a pending lawsuit concerning its use of
solitary confinement on juveniles. The lawsuit accused the
county's Probation Department, which oversees the juvenile
hall, of holding youth with disabilities in solitary
confinement for weeks or months at a time, depriving them of
education and allowing them to deteriorate mentally. (Lee,
Contra Costa ending solitary confinement at juvenile hall, SF
Gate (May 19, 2014).)
According to the settlement documents, Probation will adopt
standards which include prohibiting the use room confinement
for discipline, punishment, or retaliation, and developing
individualized programming for individuals with persistent
behavior problems that threaten the safety of the youth or
staff or the security of the facility. The settlement provides
that a juvenile may be segregated in his or her room for no
more than four hours and only if the juvenile's behavior
threatens immediate harm to themselves or others. After the
four hours, the juvenile must be removed from confinement and
the staff must develop specialized individualized programming
for the individual in coordination with the office of
education, or assess whether the youth should be transported
to a mental health facility. (Romney, Contra Costa County to
End Solitary Confinement for Juveniles, Los Angeles Times (May
SB 124
Page 17
19, 2014).)
Similar to the settlement terms reached in the Contra Costa
County case, this bill generally provides that solitary
confinement shall not be used on juveniles unless the juvenile
poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the
security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others
that is not the result of a mental disorder. This bill
provides that the person may be held in solitary confinement
for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a
period of time that does not compromise the mental and
physical health of the minor or ward. The period of time that
the person is in solitary confinement shall not exceed four
hours, and at release the person must be returned to regular
programming or placed in individualized programming.
Due to concerns by the opposition that four hours may be
insufficient in some cases to deal with a person who continues
to pose a threat to others, the author amended this bill to
allow a juvenile to be placed back into solitary confinement
if the staff determines that the person poses an immediate and
substantial risk of harm to himself or others.
6)Proposed Amendments to be Adopted in Committee: This bill will
be heard as proposed to be amended. The amendments clarify
that the bill's provisions to allow for the separation of a
juvenile for medical conditions and to allow a juvenile to ask
for a "voluntary time out" with specified limitations.
7)Argument in Support: According to the Children's Defense Fund
- California, a co-sponsor of this bill, "For over a decade,
Los Angeles County has been plagued by litigation and a
recently concluded Department of Justice oversight for abuse
and problems inside its juvenile facilities. This has cost
the county millions of dollars in legal fees and reform
efforts. Throughout California, we have faced continuous
litigation due to the unchecked use of solitary confinement:
the 2004 Division of Juvenile Facilities consent decree
('Farrell lawsuit'); the 2008 San Joaquin County lawsuit where
SB 124
Page 18
youth were in their cells 23 hours or more a day for as much
as months on end; the 2009 Sacramento County consent decree
for a serious of abuses including the illegal use of extreme
isolation; the 2014 San Diego County suicide while in
isolation lawsuit; and most recently, a federal class action
lawsuit in Contra Costa County which ended in a settlement
agreement to curb the widespread practice of solitary on youth
with disabilities.
"SB 124, if enacted, would create a uniform definition of
solitary confinement consistent with national best practices
and limit the use of solitary confinement to 4 hours. It
would also create a uniform practice of documenting its use.
"Already, states have enacted far-reaching measures to curb
the use of solitary confinement. Several states, including
Connecticut, Arizona, Maine, Oklahoma, West Virginia,
Missouri, Alaska, New York and Texas, have outright prohibited
solitary confinement for juveniles. In 2011, Colorado passed
legislation limiting the use of isolation for its adult
prisoners and required mental health assessments immediately
prior to placement in solitary confinement, resulting in more
than $25 million in annual savings. In 2012, Mississippi
finalized a consent decree to prohibit minors tried as adults
from being placed in solitary confinement. The time has come
to limit the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in
California."
8)Argument in Opposition: According to the Chief Probation
Officers of California, "While we appreciate the amendments
taken to this point, they do not go far enough in ensuring
that the Chiefs will have the necessary tools available to
them to discharge their duty and mission of protecting all the
wards in their care. The bill fails to take into account a
myriad of issues that are present in a facility on any given
day that require probation to take action. Fundamentally, in
some situations the provisions of this bill are either
impossible to implement or implementation may cause harm to
the very youth this bill is designed to protect. Chiefs stand
SB 124
Page 19
behind ensuring best practices are put in place to operate our
facilities in the safest manner for all those detained.
"Ultimately, the broad definition that remains in the bill
does not take into account all the types of situations we face
daily. Placing a definition in statute instead of relying on
a regulatory scheme that can account for a variety of
circumstances creates operational hurdles that significantly
limits probations ability to put into place best practices in
response to the specific situation presented. For example,
the definition does not account for cases in which the minor
requests the time in their room alone or minors who are sick
and prefer to rest in their room during the day. Further,
there are instances where two youth get into a fight that
results in both persons being a danger to themselves and
others and, under the provisions of the bill as currently
written, we are prohibited from temporarily confining one of
the wards if they should have a mental health disorder, yet
can do so with the other ward."
9)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 61 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would
have established standards and protocols for the use of
solitary confinement of minors and wards in state and local
juvenile facilities. SB 61 was ordered to the inactive
file.
b) SB 970 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
would have generally prohibited a minor or ward who is
detained in, or sentenced to, any juvenile facility or
other secure state or local facility from being subject to
solitary confinement, as defined, unless the minor or ward
poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others
or to the security of the facility, and all other
less-restrictive options have been exhausted, and only in
accordance with specified guidelines. SB 970 was never
heard.
SB 124
Page 20
c) SB 1363 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would
have established standards and protocols for the use of
solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities
for the confinement of delinquent minors. SB 1363 failed
passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Public Defenders Association (Sponsor)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (Sponsor)
Children's Defense Fund - California (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
American Civil Liberties Union of California
SB 124
Page 21
American Friends Service Committee
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Sacramento
Aspiranet
Association of Black Psychologists
AWARE-LA
Bend of the Arc: a Jewish Partnership for Justice
California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Civil Liberties Union
California Coalition for Youth
California Council of Churches Impact
SB 124
Page 22
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Psychological Association
California State University Northridge Social Worker Society
California Teachers Association
California Youth Empowerment Network
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Children Now
Children's Law Center of California
Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform - California
Coalition for Engaged Education
Communities United for Restorative Justice
Community Asset Development Redefining Education
Conference of California Bar Associations
SB 124
Page 23
Congregation Rodef Sholom
Dignity in Schools
Drug Policy Alliance
East Bay Children's Law Offices
Equality California
Fair Chance Project
Forward Together
Free Indeed Reentry Project, Inc.
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Gay-Straight Alliance Network of California
Human Rights Watch
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition
InnerCity Struggle
SB 124
Page 24
Justice Not Jails
Labor/Community Strategy Center's Community Rights Campaign
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Legal Services for Children
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles Unified School District
Manifest Works
Mental Health America of California
MutliFaith Voices for Peace and Justice
National Alliance on Mental Illness California
SB 124
Page 25
National Association of Black Social Workers, Inc.
National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
National Center for Youth Law
National Religious Campaign Against Torture
Nollie Jenkins Family Center
Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Peace Over Violence
Policy Link
Prison Activist Resource Center
Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition
Public Counsel
Resurrection Catholic Community
SB 124
Page 26
Riverside Temple Beth El
Sacred Harmony
San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children
Social Justice Learning Institute
Starting Over Inc.
Temple Beth El
The Children's Initiative
University of California, Berkeley, the Underground Scholars
Initiative
Urban Peace Movement
Violence Prevention Coalition
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Wilks Law
Women in Non Traditional Employment Roles, YouthBuild
Youth Law Center
SB 124
Page 27
#FREEAMERICA
172 private individuals
Opposition
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Fraternal Order of Police, N. California Probation Lodge 19
Kern County Probation Officers Association
L.A. County Probation Officers Union
Monterey County Probation Association
Probation Peace Officers Association Contra Costa
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
SB 124
Page 28
Sacramento County Probation Association
San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers' Association
San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association
Santa Clara County Probation Peace Officers' Union
State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Ventura County Professional Peace Officers' Association
Analysis Prepared by:Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744