BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1004 Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hill |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 28, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Transitional Youth Diversion Program
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California
Public Defenders Association Chief Probation Officers
of California
Opposition:Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize specified counties to
establish a 3-year deferred entry of judgment pilot program
under which young adults (18-20) convicted of non-violent,
non-serious and non-sex crimes and who are otherwise suitable
would serve their custodial time in a juvenile hall instead of a
jail, as specified.
Existing law includes various diversion and deferred entry of
judgment programs under which a person arrested for and charged
with a crime is diverted from the prosecution system and placed
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageB
of?
in a program of rehabilitation or restorative justice. Upon
successful completion of the program, the charges and underling
arrest are deemed to not have occurred, with specified
exceptions. Generally, deferred entry of judgment programs are
created and run at the discretion of the district attorney.
(See Penal Code § 1000.) Pre-plea, true drug diversion programs
are implemented upon the agreement of the district attorney, the
court and the public defender. Some examples of these provisions
are:
Post-plea deferred entry of judgment (Penal Code §
1000);
Pre-plea diversion for drug possession. (Pen. Code
1000.5);
Misdemeanor diversion, excluding driving under the
influence, crimes requiring registration as a sex offender,
crimes involving violence, as specified (Pen. Code §§ 1001,
1001.50-1001.55.) ; and
Bad check diversion. (Pen. Code §1001.60.)
Existing law provides that when "any person under 18 years of
age is detained in or sentenced to any institution in which
adults are confined, it shall be unlawful to permit such person
to come or remain in contact with such adults.
(b) No person who is a ward or dependent child of the
juvenile court who is detained in or committed to any
state hospital or other state facility shall be
permitted to come or remain in contact with any adult
person who has been committed to any state hospital or
other state facility as a mentally disordered sex
offender under the provisions of Article 1 (commencing
with Section 6300) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
6, or with any adult person who has been charged in an
accusatory pleading with the commission of any sex
offense for which registration of the convicted
offender is required under Section 290 of the Penal
Code and who has been committed to any state hospital
or other state facility pursuant to Section 1026 or
1370 of the Penal Code.
(c) As used in this section, "contact" does not
include participation in supervised group therapy or
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageC
of?
other supervised treatment activities, participation
in work furlough programs, or participation in
hospital recreational activities which are directly
supervised by employees of the hospital, so long as
living arrangements are strictly segregated and all
precautions are taken to prevent unauthorized
associations. (WIC § 208.)
Existing law provides that "(a) Notwithstanding any other law,
in any case in which a minor who is detained in or committed to
a county institution established for the purpose of housing
juveniles attains 18 years of age prior to or during the period
of detention or confinement he or she may be allowed to come or
remain in contact with those juveniles until 19 years of age, at
which time he or she, upon the recommendation of the probation
officer, shall be delivered to the custody of the sheriff for
the remainder of the time he or she remains in custody, unless
the juvenile court orders continued detention in a juvenile
facility. If continued detention is ordered for a ward under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court who is 19 years of age or
older but under 21 years of age, the detained person may be
allowed to come into or remain in contact with any other person
detained in the institution subject to the requirements of
subdivision (b). The person shall be advised of his or her
ability to petition the court for continued detention in a
juvenile facility at the time of his or her attainment of 19
years of age. Notwithstanding any other law, the sheriff may
allow the person to come into and remain in contact with other
adults in the county jail or in any other county correctional
facility in which he or she is housed.
(b) The county shall apply to the Corrections
Standards Authority for approval of a county
institution established for the purpose of housing
juveniles as a suitable place for confinement before
the institution is used for the detention or
commitment of an individual under the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court who is 19 years of age or older but
under 21 years of age where the detained person will
come into or remain in contact with persons under 18
years of age who are detained in the institution. The
authority shall review and approve or deny the
application of the county within 30 days of receiving
notice of this proposed use. In its review, the
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageD
of?
authority shall take into account the available
programming, capacity, and safety of the institution
as a place for the combined confinement and
rehabilitation of individuals under the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court who are over 19 years of age and
those who are under 19 years of age. (WIC § 208.5.)
This bill would enact a deferred entry of judgment program for
certain young adult offenders entitled the "Transitional Youth
Diversion Program" ("program"), with the following features and
requirements.
Permissive Juvenile Hall Pilot Program in Specified Counties
This bill would provide that the following counties may
establish a pilot juvenile hall program "to operate a
transitional youth diversion program for eligible defendants,"
as specified below:
(1) County of Alameda.
(2) County of Butte.
(3) County of Napa.
(4) County of Nevada.
(5) County of Santa Clara.
Eligibility: Ages 18 - 20, Qualified Offenses, Guilty Plea, and
Suitability
This bill would provide that a "defendant may participate in a
transitional youth diversion program within the county's
juvenile hall if that person is charged with committing an
offense, other than the offenses listed (below), he or she
pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and the probation
department determines that the person meets all of the following
requirements:
(1) Is 18 years of age or older, but under 21 years of age
on the date the offense was committed.
(2) Is suitable for the program after evaluation using a
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageE
of?
risk assessment tool, as specified.
(3) Shows the ability to benefit from services generally
reserved for delinquents, including, but not limited to,
cognitive behavioral therapy, other mental health services,
and age-appropriate educational, vocational, and
supervision services, that are currently deployed under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
(4) Meets the rules of the juvenile hall.
(5) Does not have a prior or current serious or violent
offense conviction, as specified.
(6) Is not required to register as a sex offender.
This bill would require probation, in consultation with the
superior court, district attorney, and sheriff or other operator
of the county jail, to develop an evaluation process using a
risk assessment tool to determine eligibility for the program.
Ineligible Offenses and Sentences
This bill would provide that the "commission by the defendant of
one or more of the following offenses makes him or her not
eligible for the program:
(1) A "serious" felony, as defined in Penal Code section
1192.7(c).
(2) A "violent" felony, as defined in Penal Code section
667.5(c).
(3) A serious or violent crime as defined in juvenile law,
WIC section 707(b).
This bill would provide that the program would apply "to a
defendant that would otherwise serve time in custody in a county
jail. Participation in a program pursuant to this section shall
not be authorized as an alternative to a sentence involving
community supervision."
Deferred Entry of Judgment if Defendant Agrees to Participate in
the Program
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageF
of?
This bill would require the court to "grant deferred entry of
judgment if an eligible defendant consents to participate in the
program, waives his or her right to a speedy trial or a speedy
preliminary hearing, pleads guilty to the charge or charges, and
waives time for the pronouncement of judgment."
Standard Criminal Proceedings if Defendant is not Diverted to
the Program
This bill would provide that if the probation officer determines
that the defendant is not eligible for, or does not consent to
participating in the program, the proceedings shall continue as
in any other case.
Return to Court if Probation Concludes Defendant Performing
Unsatisfactorily
This bill would provide that, it "it appears to the probation
department that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in
the program as a result of the commission of a new crime or the
violation of any of the rules of the juvenile hall or that the
defendant is not benefiting from the services in the program,
the probation department may make a motion for entry of
judgment. After notice to the defendant, the court shall hold a
hearing to determine whether judgment should be entered. If the
court finds that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in
the program or that the defendant is not benefiting from the
services in the program, the court shall render a finding of
guilt to the charge or charges pled, enter judgment, and
schedule a sentencing hearing as otherwise provided in this
code, and the probation department, in consultation with the
county sheriff, shall remove the defendant from the program and
return him or her to custody in county jail. The mechanism of
when and how the defendant is moved from custody in juvenile
hall to custody in a county jail shall be determined by the
local justice stakeholders."
Dismissal of Criminal Charge(s) if Defendant Performs
Satisfactorily
This bill provides that, if "the defendant has performed
satisfactorily during the period in which deferred entry of
judgment was granted, at the end of that period, the court shall
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageG
of?
dismiss the criminal charge or charges."
Reentry Services
This bill would require probation to "develop a plan for reentry
services, including, but not limited to, housing, employment,
and education services, as a component of the program."
This bill would require probation to "submit data relating to
the effectiveness of the program to the Division of Recidivism
Reduction and Re-Entry, within the Department of Justice,
including recidivism rates for program participants as compared
to recidivism rates for similar populations in the adult system
within the county."
No Contact with Minors
This bill would require that a defendant participating in the
program "shall not come into contact with minors within the
juvenile hall for any purpose, including, but not limited to,
housing, recreation, or education."
This bill would require that a county that establishes this
program "shall work with the Board of State and Community
Corrections to ensure compliance with requirements of the
federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5601 et seq.), as amended, relating to "sight
and sound" separation between juveniles and adult inmates."
Sunset
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2020.
Legislative Findings
The California Constitution provides that, "(a) All laws of a
general nature have uniform operation. (b) A local or special
statute is invalid in any case if a general statute can be made
applicable." (Cal. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 16.)
This bill contains legislative findings that "a special law is
necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
Constitution because of the unique circumstances in the Counties
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageH
of?
of Alameda, Butte, Napa, Nevada, and Santa Clara. Recent
research on the adolescent brain development has found that
brain development continues well after an individual reaches 18
years of age. This bill would therefore allow for the criminal
justice system to apply the most recent brain development
research to its practices in these counties by allowing certain
transitional age youth access to age-appropriate rehabilitative
services available in the juvenile justice system when an
assessment determines that the individual would benefit from the
services, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of the youth
continuing in the criminal justice system."
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
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageI
of?
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.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageJ
of?
Under current law, young adult offenders convicted of
specified crimes serve their sentence locally in
county jails. But while legally they are adults, young
offenders age 18-21 are still undergoing significant
brain development and it's becoming clear that this
age group may be better served by the juvenile justice
system with corresponding age appropriate intensive
services. Research shows that people do not develop
adult-quality decision-making skills until their early
20's. This can be referred to as the "maturity gap."
Because of this, young adults are more likely to
engage in risk-seeking behavior which may be
cultivated in adult county jails where the young
adults are surrounded by older, more hardened
criminals.
As such, in order to address the criminogenic and
behavioral needs of young adults, it is important that
age appropriate services are provided, services they
may not get in adult county jails. Juvenile detention
facilities have such services available for young
adults including, but not limited to, cognitive
behavioral therapy, mental health treatment,
vocational training, and education, among others.
2.What This Bill Would Do
As explained in detail above, this bill would authorize five
counties - Alameda, Butte, Napa, Nevada, and Santa Clara - to
operative a pilot program where certain young adult offenders
would serve their time in a juvenile hall instead of a jail.
The young adults must be under the age of 21, and not convicted
of a serious, violent or sex crime. They also would have to be
assessed and found suitable for the program.
As structured by the bill, this would be a deferred entry of
judgment program - which means while participants would have to
plead guilty to be eligible for the program, if they succeed in
the program the criminal charges would be dismissed. Probation
would be required to develop a plan for reentry services,
including, but not limited to, housing, employment, and
education services, as a component of the program. The bill has
a 3-year sunset.
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageK
of?
Members and the author may wish to discuss why the pilots this
bill would authorize are limited to the five counties specified
in the bill.
3.Human Brain Development
As noted by the author, and considered by the Committee in many
prior hearings on juvenile law and sentencing youthful
offenders, the science of adolescent brain development has
become very relevant in crafting state and national law and
policy. With respect to the importance and progression of that
development, Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D., the Distinguished
University Professor and Laura H. Carnell Professor of
Psychology at Temple University and a leading expert on
adolescence, explained in a 2014 white paper:
There is now incontrovertible evidence that
adolescence is a period of significant changes in
brain structure and function. Although most of this
work has appeared just in the past 15 years, there is
already strong consensus among developmental
neuroscientists about the nature of these changes. And
the most important conclusion to emerge from recent
research is that important changes in brain anatomy
and activity take place far longer into development
than had been previously thought. Reasonable people
may disagree about what these findings may mean as
society decides how to treat young people, but there
is little room for disagreement about the fact that
adolescence is a period of substantial brain
maturation with respect to both structure and
function.
. . . These structural and functional changes do not
all take place along one uniform timetable, and the
differences in their timing raise two important points
relevant to the use of neuroscience in public policy.
First, there is no simple answer to the question of
when an adolescent brain becomes an adult brain. Brain
systems implicated in basic cognitive processes reach
adult levels of maturity by mid-adolescence, whereas
those that are active in self-regulation do not fully
mature until late adolescence or even early adulthood.
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageL
of?
In other words, adolescents mature intellectually
before they mature socially or emotionally, a fact
that helps explain why teenagers who are so smart in
some respects sometimes do surprisingly dumb things.
To the extent that society wishes to use developmental
neuroscience to inform public policy decisions on
where to draw age boundaries between adolescence and
adulthood, it is important to match the policy
question with the right science.<1>
4.Opposition
The Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, which opposes this
bill, argues in part:
Though we strongly support efforts to allow
transitional age youth to access rehabilitative
services, the approach taken by SB 1004 runs counter
to the research that shows that incarceration and
detention of youth may increase recidivism and impede
successful life outcomes.
The program outlined in SB 1004 is troubling primarily
because the program is based in a custodial setting
and appears to be intended for those charged with
misdemeanor offenses.^ Such individuals would be
better served by a community-based, out-of-custody
rehabilitation setting than an in-custody program
provided by probation. Studies have shown that
incarcerating youth can increase recidivism.^
Researchers have reported higher levels of substance
ahuse, school difficulties, delinquency, violence and
adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those who
have been treated in settings where deviant/delinquent
youth are brought together for treatment.'*
----------------------
<1> Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain
Development Inform Public Policy? (2014)
(https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4e3FILdCIeReTNUb3M5Sk1a
dVU&usp=sharing&tid=0B4e3FILdCIeRVjhmX1M2SlY0YzQ
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageM
of?
. . . Of equal concern to PJDC is that the creation
of such a program for misdemeanants will have the
unintended consequence of net-widening of the criminal
justice system: increasing the number of incarcerated
individuals at a time when jurisdictions across the
country are turning away from incarceration as a
solution and pursuing community-based alternatives for
treatment and rehabilitation. . . . The proposed
legislation states that only individuals who would
otherwise serve time in custody are eligible for this
program; however, this provision alone does not
provide enough protection that individuals who would
otherwise get probation, or a minimal number of days
in county jail, could still he placed in this program.
And though the program also provides reentry services,
even the best-laid reentry plan often fails because of
the difficulties of transitioning hack to the
community after a period of incarceration . . .
Lastly, this bill is troubling because this program
could very well have a greater impact on communities
of color. As it stands, African Americans and Latinos
make up a disproportionate percentage of drug arrests
and jail and prison populations. Without any
purposeful measures to ensure against such
overrepresentation by African American and Latino
defendants, these diversion programs could he yet
another reflection of that disproportionate impact.
Members may wish to discuss these and other potential
unanswered concerns or details about the bill. For
example:
The bill provides that the pilot "applies to a
defendant that would otherwise serve time in custody
in a county jail. Participation in a program pursuant
to this section shall not be authorized as an
alternative to a sentence involving community
supervision." Is this language sufficient to ensure
that the pilot would not increase the likelihood that
a youthful offender would receive a custodial
sanction instead of community supervision?
Could this pilot influence plea bargaining, and
SB 1004 (Hill ) PageN
of?
cause defendants to plead to custodial sanctions (in
the juvenile hall instead of the jail) which
otherwise may not have been part of their sentence?
What would be the time limits on these sentences
-- how long could a young adult end up serving in
juvenile hall?
The bill is silent on oversight of these piloted
projects except for ensuring federal sight and sound
separation laws between juveniles and adults are met.
Should the Board of State and Community Corrections,
which now inspects juvenile hall, have a stronger
role in inspecting these pilot programs, including to
ensure minors in juvenile hall are not being
adversely affected, even remotely, by the new
population of young adults?
While the bill would require pilots to "submit
data relating to the effectiveness of the program to
the Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry,
within the Department of Justice, including
recidivism rates for program participants as compared
to recidivism rates for similar populations in the
adult system within the county," is this sufficient
to evaluate the impact of the pilot?
-- END -