BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 941 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mitchell |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juvenile Justice: Financial Liability for Fees and
Costs
HISTORY
Source:Western Center on Law and Poverty
Prior Legislation:SB 504 (Lara) - Ch. 388, Stats. 2015
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; Aspiranet; California
Coalition for Youth; Children's Defense Fund;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Immigrant Policy Center; California Public Defenders
Association; Californians United for a Responsible
Budget; Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice;
Children Now; Contra Costa County Public Defender;
Public Defender of Humboldt County; Courage Campaign;
District Attorney for the City and County of San
Francisco; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Fresh
Lifelines for Youth; Juvenile Court Judges of
California; Juvenile Law Center; Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal
Services for Prisoners with Children; National
Juvenile Defender Center; A New Way of Life Reentry
Project; Pacific Juvenile Defender Center; Prison Law
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageB
of?
Office; Root & Rebound; San Francisco Public Defender;
Silicon Valley De-Bug; Southern Poverty Law Center;
Youth Justice Coalition; Youth Law Center
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate a number of fiscal
liabilities to parents, guardians and minors for costs
associated with a minor's involvement in the juvenile justice
system and, in some instances, comparable costs for convicted
young adults under the age of 21 , as specified.
Family Liability Based on Juvenile Detention or Wardship
Current law generally authorizes the board of supervisors for
any county to designate a county officer to make financial
evaluations of defendants and other persons liable for
reimbursable costs under the law, as specified. (Government
Code § 27750.)
Current law provides that the county financial evaluation
officer shall make financial evaluations of parental
liability<1> for reimbursements and other court-ordered costs
relating to reasonable costs of support of the minor while the
minor is placed, or detained in, or committed to, any
institution, as a result of temporary detention or a delinquency
court order, legal services, probation supervision, and costs
for records sealing, as specified,<2> as directed by the board
of supervisors, or as established by order of the juvenile
court, and may enforce the court order as any other civil
judgment, including any balance remaining unpaid after
jurisdiction of the minor has terminated. (Government Code §
---------------------------
<1> Specifically, the father, mother, spouse, or other person
liable for the support of a minor, the estate of that person,
and the estate of the minor.
<2> Sections 903, 903.1, 903.2, 903.3, and 903.45 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageC
of?
27765.)
This bill would narrow the scope of this liability for these
kinds of costs to apply only to legal services rendered to the
minor by an attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court,
any cost to the county or the court of legal services rendered
directly to the father, mother, or spouse, of the minor or any
other person liable for the support of the minor, in a
dependency proceeding by an attorney appointed pursuant to an
order of the juvenile court (Welfare and Institutions Code
("WIC") § 903.1), and, for persons age 26 and older, the cost to
the county and court for any investigation related to the
sealing and for the sealing of any juvenile court or arrest
records, as specified. (WIC § 903.3.)
Current law generally provides the authority for a county
financial evaluation officer to reduce, cancel or remit the
costs of juvenile wardship, as described above; to investigate
the financial condition of the minor and his or her relatives to
determine their financial capacity to pay such charges; and to
enforce a claim for reimbursement for these charges if it is
learned that property or other assets subsequently were
acquired, as specified. (Government Code § 27757.)
This bill would amend this section to delete all of its
provisions except the authority to reduce, cancel or remit the
costs associated with the legal and sealing costs described and
cited above.
Liability Based on Costs for Electronic Home Detention or County
Inmate Work Furlough Participation
Current law authorizes sheriffs, probation officers, and
directors of county departments of corrections to "offer a
program under which inmates committed to a county jail or other
county correctional facility or granted probation, or inmates
participating in a work furlough program, may voluntarily
participate or involuntarily be placed in a home detention
program during their sentence in lieu of confinement in the a
county jail or other county correctional facility or program
under the auspices of the probation officer." (Penal Code §
1203.016.)
Current law provides that the "board of supervisors may
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageD
of?
prescribe a program administrative fee to be paid by each home
detention participant that shall be determined according to his
or her ability to pay. Inability to pay all or a portion of the
program fees shall not preclude participation in the program,
and eligibility shall not be enhanced by reason of ability to
pay," as specified. (Penal Code § 1203.016(g).)
This bill would limit this administrative fee to adult home
detention participants who are over the age of 21 years and
under the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
Current law generally allows a county, upon approval by the
board of supervisors, to establish a work furlough program for
qualifying screened offenders, and permits the work furlough
administrator to collect the inmate's earning in order to pay
for the inmate's board and personal expenses, and administrative
costs. (Penal Code § 1208.)
Current law provides that a board of supervisors which
implements work furlough, electronic home detention, or parole
programs, as specified, may prescribe a program administrative
fee and an application fee, that together shall not exceed the
pro rata cost of the program to which the person is accepted,
including equipment, supervision, and other operating costs,
except that with "regard to a privately operated electronic home
detention program . . . the limitation, . . . (that that
these fees shall not exceed the pro rata cost of the program to
which the person is accepted) . . . in prescribing a program
administrative fee and application fee shall not apply." (Penal
Code § 1208.2(b).)
This bill would provide that with regard to an electronic home
detention program, as specified, "whether or not the program is
privately operated, any administrative fee or application fee
prescribed by a board of supervisors shall only apply to adults
over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal
court."
Liability for the Costs of Drug Testing
Current law provides that, for persons convicted of an offense
involving the unlawful possession, use, sale, or other
furnishing of any controlled substance, in addition to any
sanctions and unless the court makes a finding that this
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageE
of?
condition would not serve the interests of justice, the court,
when recommended by the probation officer, shall require as a
condition of probation that the defendant submit to drug and
substance abuse testing. If the defendant is so ordered "and
has the financial ability to pay all or part of the costs
associated with that testing, the court shall order the
defendant to pay a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the
actual cost of the testing." (Penal Code § 1203.1ab.)
This bill would limit this provision to adults over 21 years of
age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
Current law imposes this same liability on minors found to be a
delinquent ward of the court by reason of the commission of an
offense involving the unlawful possession, use, sale, or other
furnishing of a controlled substance. (WIC § 729.9.)
This bill would delete the provisions subjecting the minor to a
court order to pay for any part of this testing.
Liability for Transporting a Minor Held in Temporary Custody
Current law generally provides that a minor who is held in
temporary custody in a law enforcement facility that contains a
lockup for adults may be released to a parent, guardian, or
responsible relative by the law enforcement agency operating the
facility, or into his or her own custody, provided that a minor
released into his or her own custody is furnished, upon request,
with transportation to his or her home or to the place where the
minor was taken into custody. (WIC § 207.2.)
Current law provides that a parent or guardian is liable for the
reasonable costs of transporting the minor to a juvenile
facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and
care at the juvenile facility when the parent or guardian has
actual notice the minor is schedule for release and that the
parent or guardian is asked to pick up the minor by a time
certain no later than six hours from the time the minor was
placed in detention; when it is "reasonably possible" for the
parent or guardian to pick up the minor; and the parent or
guardian refused to accept or make a reasonable effort to pick
up on the minor. (WIC § 207.2(b).) Current law imposes a $100
cap on this liability, combined with additional, related
liabilities as specified, for every 24 hour period the parent or
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageF
of?
guardian fails to make a reasonable effort to pick up the minor,
as specified. (WIC § 207.2 (c). Current law further limits
this liability by ability to pay, as specified. (WIC §
207.2(d).)
This bill deletes all of the financial liability provisions of
this section.
Liability for Legal Expenses
Current law provides that the "father, mother, spouse, or other
person liable for the support of a minor, the estate of that
person, and the estate of the minor, shall be liable for the
cost to the county or the court, whichever entity incurred the
expenses, of legal services rendered to the minor by an attorney
pursuant to an order of the juvenile court. The father, mother,
spouse, or other person liable for the support of a minor and
the estate of that person shall also be liable for any cost to
the county or the court of legal services rendered directly to
the father, mother, or spouse, of the minor or any other person
liable for the support of the minor, in a dependency proceeding
by an attorney appointed pursuant to an order of the juvenile
court. The liability of those persons (in this article called
relatives) and estates shall be a joint and several liability.
Current law provides that this liability does not apply "if a
petition to declare the minor a dependent child of the court
pursuant to Section 300 is dismissed at or before the
jurisdictional hearing." (WIC § 903.1)
This bill would limit this liability to apply for any cost to
the county or the court of legal services rendered directly to
the father, mother, or spouse, of the minor or any other person
liable for the support of the minor, in a dependency proceeding
by an attorney appointed pursuant to an order of the juvenile
court.
Conforming Amendments
This bill makes conforming amendments consistent with its
provisions limiting the liabilities as described above, in the
following sections:
Family notification of potential liabilities required in
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageG
of?
a petition to commence proceedings in the juvenile court to
declare a child a ward or dependent of the court, (WIC §§
332 and 656).
Ability to pay cross-reference to a section repealed by
this bill (WIC § 871).)
Liabilities Pertaining to the Support of Wards and Dependent
Children
Current law states that if "it is necessary that provision be
made for the expense of support and maintenance of a ward or
dependent child of the juvenile court or of a minor person
concerning whom a petition has been filed . . . the order
providing for the care and custody of such ward, dependent child
or other minor person shall direct that the whole expense of
support and maintenance of such ward, dependent child or other
minor person, up to the amount of . . . $20 per month be paid
from the county treasury and may direct that an amount up to any
maximum amount per month established by the board of supervisors
of the county be so paid. The board of supervisors of each
county is hereby authorized to establish, either generally or
for individual wards or dependent children or according to
classes or groups of wards or dependent children, a maximum
amount which the court may order the county to pay for such
support and maintenance. All orders made pursuant to the
provisions of this section shall state the amounts to be so paid
from the county treasury, and such amounts shall constitute
legal charges against the county.
This bill would revise this provision to instead authorize that
the order for the care and custody of the ward, dependent child
or other minor direct that the whole expense of support and
maintenance for the child be paid for from the county treasury.
This bill additionally makes a technical correction to this
section.
CalWORKS Welfare to Work
Current law generally provides statutory requirements for
eligibility for an individual to participate in "family
stabilization," as specified. (WIC § 11325.24.)
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageH
of?
This bill would add to this criteria that a "child in the family
has been held in temporary custody in a law enforcement facility
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 207.1."
Statutes Repealed by This Bill
This bill additionally repeals the following existing sections
providing for liability relating to wards of the court:
WIC section 902 (orders for additional amounts to pay
the whole expense of support and maintenance of a ward,
dependent child, or other minor person);
WIC section 903 (liability for costs of support of the
minor while the minor is placed, or detained in, or
committed to, any institution or other place, as
specified);
WIC section 903.15 (liability for registration fee of up
to $50 for appointed legal counsel);
WIC section 903.2 (liability for probation supervision,
home supervision, or electronic supervision);
WIC section 903.25 (food, shelter and care costs of
juveniles in custody of probation or detained in juvenile
facility);
WIC section 903.4 (recovery of moneys or incurred costs
for support of minors in county institution or other
placed program);
WIC section 903.45 (financial evaluation of ability to
pay; subsequent petition for order to pay);
WIC section 903.5 (voluntary placement of minor in
out-of-home care);
WIC section 903.6 (distribution of collected funds);
WIC section 903.7 (the "Foster Children and Parent
Training Fund.") and
WIC section 904 (determination of charges by boards of
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageI
of?
supervisors or courts).
Outstanding Court-ordered Costs Unenforceable after January 1,
2017
This bill would provide that on and after January 1, 2017, the
balance of any court-ordered costs imposed pursuant to the
liabilities eliminated by this bill "shall be unenforceable and
uncollectable, and, on January 1, 2018, the portion of the
judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated."
This bill further would provide that on and after January 1,
2017, the balance of any court-ordered costs imposed pursuant
Section 903.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code that are
related to the rendering of legal services to a minor by an
attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court shall be
unenforceable and uncollectable, and, on January 1, 2018, the
portion of the judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated."
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
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageJ
of?
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
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageK
of?
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
Current law authorizes counties to hold parents liable
for many of the costs incurred in providing counsel,
care and supervision to youth in the juvenile system
in order to help counties recoup costs. . . .
. . . These fees are purely administrative in
nature-by law, the fees are meant solely "to protect
the fiscal integrity of the county." They are not
supposed to be retributive, rehabilitative or
restorative. . . .
In 2015, the Policy Advocacy Clinic at Berkeley Law
surveyed all 58 Chief Probation Officers in California
about juvenile administrative fee practices. They
received responses from 52 counties. Fees differ by
jurisdiction, but 48 of 52 California counties report
charging fees for detention in Juvenile Hall, 28
charge for electronic monitoring, 21 charge for
probation supervision and 15 charge for drug testing;
of the fixed fees, 37 of 52 counties charge for public
defenders and 11 charge for investigations. . . .
Two counties-Los Angeles and San Francisco-do not
assess and collect juvenile administrative fees. San
Francisco has never charged fees as a matter of
principle . . . . Los Angeles placed a moratorium on
these fees in 2009 after negative media attention to
the County's billing and collection practices and the
harm it caused to families. . . .
Charging existing fee amounts on families in various
counties across the state can disrupt a family's
financial stability. For example, in Contra Costa
County, a family was charged over $4000 in fees for
days that their son spent in juvenile hall despite the
fact that he was later cleared of all charges against
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageL
of?
him. Upon assessment, these fees became a civil
judgment against the family. . . .
Given that many families with youth in the juvenile
justice system are disproportionately low-income, the
harm is particularly acute when fees are ordered
against these families. . . .
Additionally, youth of color are overrepresented at
every stage in the criminal justice system, even when
controlling for alleged criminal behavior. . . .
Racially disproportionate interaction with the system
leaves youth of color and their families with
significantly more court-related debt. For example,
in Alameda County, because African American youth are
sentenced more often to probation and serve longer
probation conditions than white youth, a family with
an African American youth is liable for more than
twice the juvenile administrative fees ($3,438) as a
family with a white youth ($1,637). . . .
. . . Under Welfare and Institutions Code section
903.45, financial evaluation officers (FEOs) are
supposed to evaluate who can afford to pay such fees
and whose fees should be reduced or waived based on an
inability to pay. Unfortunately, in many counties, the
ability to pay determination is not conducted fairly
or consistently. For example, in Alameda County, one
FEO stated that she could tell whether a family was
lying about their income based on the mother's
handbag. In Orange County, ability to pay
determinations are not based on current income;
instead, the County considers the likelihood of
obtaining employment and future income. In any
county, the burden often appears to be on low-income
families to prove their inability to pay, with FEOs
exercising wide discretion . . . .
As a result of the high financial burden and a flawed
ability to pay process, county policies and practices
undermine family stability, and are counterproductive
to the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system.
. . .
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageM
of?
Current juvenile administrative fee scheme also
creates perverse incentives for youth and their
families. A grandmother who was charged detention fees
for her grandson contemplated relinquishing custody of
her grandson to the county because she could not pay
these fees on her income of only $400 per month. In
another instance, a youth thought of running away from
home and living on the streets-becoming homeless-in
the hopes that his family would be relieved of the fee
burden. . . .
Research through Public Record Act requests to Alameda
County, Contra Costa County, Orange County, Riverside
County, Sacramento County, and Santa Clara County has
also shown that counties receive minimal revenue from
charging low-income families administrative fees. . .
.
. . . most (families) cannot afford to pay these
fees. . . . . . . (M)any counties spend nearly as
much on trying to collect administrative fees from
low-income families than they actually collect each
year. For example, Alameda County has four staff in
its Central Collections Agency at varying FTE levels
who are in charge of assessing and collecting fees
from families. Taking into consideration their
salaries and benefits as well as other costs involved,
Alameda County spends approximately $250,000 each year
to collect only $400,000. In other words, their net
financial gain each year is only about $150,000, which
is minimal in light of $74.3 million Probation budget.
. . .
2.What This Bill Would Do
As explained in detail above, this bill would repeal
existing statutory authority to charge the families and
guardians of children in the juvenile justice system for
the costs of their care and supervision. The bill also has
similar provisions for young adults under the age of 21.
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageN
of?
Liabilities for costs associated with a youth or young
adult being in the juvenile or adult system which would be
ended under this bill include:
supervised drug testing;
home detention or work furlough programs that are
alternatives to incarceration;
orders for out-of-home care and custody of a minor;
and
reasonable costs for transporting a minor to a
juvenile facility, and food, shelter and care costs.
This bill would make any pending orders for these charges
unenforceable after January 1, 2017.
1.Background: Data Collected
The Policy Advocacy Clinic at the U.C. Berkeley Law School,
which has been studying the practice and impact of county
assessment of administrative fees against families of youth
who have been detained or placed on probation for the past
two years, provided the Committee the following chart
summarizing the fees targeted by this bill in several
counties.
The following table, also provided by the Berkeley Law
Policy Advocacy Clinic, shows the average juvenile
probation conditions and fees by race in Alameda County
based on a July 2013 monthly report:
-- END -
SB 941 (Mitchell ) PageO
of?