BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1031 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juvenile Justice Information System
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 314 (Alpert) - Ch. 468, Stats. 2001
AB 488 (Baca) - Ch. 803, Stats. 1995
Support: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Children Now;
Commonweal, The Juvenile Justice Program
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Department of
Justice, which currently is required to collect and report on
some data concerning juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice
system, to develop a design structure and implementation plan
for a "California Juvenile Justice Information System" by
January 1 of 2018, and to implement that new system by July 1,
2019.
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageB
of?
Current law generally requires Department of Justice ("DOJ") to
collect specified crime-related data, and to prepare an annual
report of crime-related statistics, as specified. (Penal Code §
13010.)
Current law provides that DOJ "may serve as statistical and
research agency to the Department of Corrections, the Board of
Prison Terms, the Board of Corrections, the Department of the
Youth Authority, and the Youthful Offender Parole Board."
(Penal Code § 13011.)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime
statistics report, DOJ shall provide statistics showing the
"administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial,
penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including
those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals
or delinquents," (Penal Code § 13012(a)(3) and the
"administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial,
judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in
the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the
subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to
transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal
court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated
in an adult criminal court." (Penal Code § 13012(a)(4).)
Current law requires that, as part of its annual crime
statistics report, DOJ "shall include the following information:
(1) The annual number of fitness hearings held in the
juvenile courts under Section 707 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, and the outcomes of those hearings
including orders to remand to adult criminal court,
cross-referenced with information about the age,
gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose
cases are the subject of those fitness hearings.
(2) The annual number of minors whose cases are filed
directly in adult criminal court under Sections 602.5
and 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
cross-referenced with information about the age,
gender, ethnicity, and offense of the minors whose
cases are filed directly to the adult criminal court.
(3) The outcomes of cases involving minors who are
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageC
of?
prosecuted in adult criminal courts, regardless of how
adult court jurisdiction was initiated, including
whether the minor was acquitted or convicted, or
whether the case was dismissed and returned to
juvenile court, including sentencing outcomes,
cross-referenced with the age, gender, ethnicity, and
offense of the minors subject to these court actions.
. . . (Penal Code § 13012.5.)
Current law requires DOJ to collect "data pertaining to the
juvenile justice system for criminal history and statistical
purposes. This information shall serve to assist the department
in complying with the reporting requirement of subdivisions (c)
and (d) of Section 13012, measuring the extent of juvenile
delinquency, determining the need for and effectiveness of
relevant legislation, and identifying long-term trends in
juvenile delinquency. Any data collected pursuant to this
section may include criminal history information which may be
used by the department to comply with the requirements of
Section 602.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code." (Penal
Code § 13010.5.)
This bill would amend this section to provide the following:
Require DOJ, on or before January 1, 2018, to "develop,
with advice from the Chief Probation Officers of
California, the Judicial Council, advocates for juveniles,
and other stakeholders, a design structure and
implementation plan for the California Juvenile Justice
Information System."
Require DOJ, on or before July 1, 2019, to "establish
and implement a California Juvenile Justice Information
System consistent with this section."
Provide that the purpose of the California Juvenile
Justice Information System shall be to develop and maintain
statewide statistical information, including information
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageD
of?
collected and shared by counties, which promotes the
operational and program effectiveness of state and local
juvenile justice systems in California in reducing the
incidence of juvenile crime and recidivism among juvenile
offenders. The information system to be developed by the
department shall include, but not be limited to, the
following features:
(1) Providing for the integrated and user-friendly
collection and reporting of statewide juvenile justice data
reflecting key demographic and case processing
characteristics of children who come into contact with the
juvenile justice system.
(2) Providing data relating to the effectiveness of
programs, practices, or other prevention and intervention
strategies employed to respond to juvenile crime and reduce
recidivism among juvenile offenders.
(3) Facilitating and supporting the scope and quality of
data describing the characteristics and needs of youthful
offenders and the juvenile justice programs and practices
necessary to effectively manage state and local resources
invested in the juvenile justice system.
(4) Supporting local juvenile justice agencies in
developing and maintaining local juvenile justice data
systems and in the collection and submission of local
juvenile justice data to state agencies.
State that in "establishing the technology
infrastructure for the development of the California
Juvenile Justice Information System, the department shall
adopt a set of goals and objectives consistent with this
section, to be reflected in a system design which shall
support the direction for the information system."
This bill would appropriate an unspecified sum from the General
Fund to the Department of Justice for the purpose of funding the
development of a design structure and implementation plan for
the California Juvenile Justice Information System.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageE
of?
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.
(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
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageF
of?
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:
This bill establishes a framework for planning and
implementing a unified and updated California Juvenile
Justice Information System by 2019. Currently,
information about California's youthful offenders and
its juvenile justice system is fragmented, and
available through technology that is limited in
capacity and function. An updated statewide juvenile
justice data system will provide valuable information
about youthful offenders and resources dedicated to
rehabilitating them.
This bill is designed to revitalize the state's
capacity for data that is useful to probation, courts,
service providers and other stakeholders committed to
an effective juvenile justice system.
2.What This Bill Would Do
This bill would require the Department of Justice, which
currently is required to collect and report on some data
concerning juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice system,
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageG
of?
to develop a design structure and implementation plan for a
"California Juvenile Justice Information System" by January 1 of
2018. The bill provides that the new system be implemented July
1, 2019.
The purpose of the proposed information system would be "to
develop and maintain statewide statistical information,
including information collected and shared by counties, which
promotes the operational and program effectiveness of state and
local juvenile justice systems in California . . . ."
The bill describes key objectives for the system, which include
integrated and user-friendly systems for statewide juvenile
justice data; data relating to the effectiveness of programs,
practices, or other prevention and intervention strategies;
enhanced scope and quality of data describing the
characteristics and needs of youthful offenders and juvenile
justice programs and practices; and support for local agencies
with local juvenile data systems.
3.Background: Juvenile Data a Longstanding Issue
Juvenile justice data collection in California has long been an
issue of concern among many juvenile justice advocates and
experts. In its September 1994 report, The Juvenile Crime
Challenge: Making Prevention a Priority<1>, the Little Hoover
Commission stated:
The current lack of data on costs across
jurisdictional levels, case outcomes and comprehensive
recidivism tracking makes it difficult to make
informed and rational policy decisions.
In its final report dated September of 1996, the California Task
Force to Review Juvenile Crime and the Juvenile Response<2>
stated:
---------------------------
<1> http://www.lhc.ca.gov/earlyreports/127rp.html.
<2> Created by AB 2428 (Epple) (Ch. 454, Stats. 1994), the Task
Force was chaired by Riverside District Attorney Grover Trask,
and comprised of statutorily-designated members.
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageH
of?
Throughout testimony to the Task Force and throughout
this report, reference is made to the lack of research
and statistics about the juvenile justice system . . .
This paucity of good information for decision-making
makes the work of the research and statistical
community in California's governmental agencies,
academic institutions, and private research firms much
more difficult. . . .
At the deepest end of the system, the chapter on
Jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court cites a list of
unanswered research questions on fitness and waiver
policy in California. This list included such
questions as: "How many motions for waiver or fitness
hearings are filed? For which offenders and offenses?
What are the county-specific rates, and what is the
variation across counties?"
Twenty years later, in January 2016, a report produced by a
working group of the Board of State and Community Corrections
(required by AB 1468 in 2014) concluded that California
continues to have "critical gaps, fractures and omissions in the
total foundation and framework of the state's juvenile justice
data system." The report, entitled "Rebuilding California's
Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to Improve Data
Collection, Performance Measures and Outcomes for California
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageI
of?
Youth,"<3> states in part:
Increasingly across the nation, state and local
juvenile justice systems are expanding data
collection capacity to support effective and
evidence-based practices and to promote positive
outcomes for justice-involved youth. Several
factors help to explain this growth of interest in
data-driven approaches to juvenile justice, including:
The need for evidence to guide the
adoption of practices that are safe, effective
and unbiased.
The need to control justice system costs
by deploying cost-effective alternatives to
incarceration.
An expanding national body of research
on adolescent development that is changing
federal and state juvenile justice laws and practices.
Recognition that the juvenile justice
-----------------------
<3>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16
.pdf. (See also, Letter to the Legislature from Board Chair
Linda Penner accompanying the report, which stated in part, "The
Board itself
has not had input into, nor has it reviewed, the report. The
BSCC Executive Staff is reviewing the report and has identified
a number of issues that require further analysis before the
BSCC can provide any recommendations,
technical assistance or comments. These issues include concern
about policy and fiscal impacts at both the state and
county level, information technology feasibility, and
infrastructure changes within California's Executive Branch.
Although the report emphasizes the need for funding to
be made available to accomplish the proposed changes, the
BSCC is always mindful of changes that create new mandates for
counties. Finally, I believe that the Board would not support
Recommendation 6 to form a statutory Task Force, Board, or
Commission that is independent of (but attached to and staffed
by) the BSCC."
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Letter%20Penner %20to%20
Senate%20-%20JJDWG%20Final%20Report.pdf.
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageJ
of?
system must have adequate capacity to document
youth outcomes if its rehabilitative goals are to be
met.
Regrettably, California has allowed its
state-level juvenile justice data systems to
fall into a pattern of long-term decline. The
technology supporting the state's main juvenile
justice data bank is antiquated and cannot be
upgraded. There is no state-level capacity to track
many important youth outcomes including recidivism.
California's state juvenile justice data banks are
split between different agencies and are not
integrated with county-level data systems. An
overarching problem is that California has
failed to make any significant state investment
in modernizing its juvenile justice data capacity
for more than two decades. While state data
systems in other child-serving realms-like
education and child welfare-have benefitted from
major upgrades to meet contemporary needs, this
has not been the case for a California juvenile
justice system that processes more than 100,000
children each year. <4>
The Working Group described the following "critical deficiencies
in the state's overall capacity to collect, analyze and report
juvenile justice system data. In brief summary the gap analysis
found:
1. Inability to track important case and
outcome information on a comprehensive statewide
basis. The JCPSS data repository maintained by
the DOJ has severe shortcomings. Some important
juvenile justice processing events are not
collected through JCPSS, and the system cannot be
upgraded to capture additional data. There is no
statewide capacity to track important outcomes
like recidivism. As presently configured, JCPSS
does not support program evaluation or the
---------------------
<4>
http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Exec%20Summary%20JJDWG%20FINAL%2
01-11-16.pdf
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageK
of?
comprehensive assessment of key policy reforms,
such juvenile justice realignment.
2. Outdated technology. The JCPSS became
operational at DOJ in 2002. By modern standards,
this is an antiquated information system. It is
essentially "non-expandable." Recommendation 1
addresses the need to replace this outdated
technology.
3. Limits of the facility data reported to
BSCC; the Juvenile Detention Profile Survey.
BSCC collects data from county probation
departments on youth confined in local juvenile
halls and probation camps or ranches. The results
are posted on line in quarterly Juvenile
Detention Profile Survey (JDPS) reports. This is
the state's only central source of information on
children confined in local juvenile justice
facilities. JDPS reports are based on aggregate
(not individual) data, and many important
measures and data elements (such as
race/ethnicity and detailed offense information)
are not presently included.
4. Fracturing of data collection and
reporting responsibilities among different state
agencies. Lacking a dedicated state juvenile
justice agency, California's juvenile justice
data banks are dispersed among different state
agencies. Researchers and analysts seeking to
compose a coherent juvenile justice profile or
picture need to jump between websites of
different agencies. The information gleaned from
this multi-site search may be incomplete or
incompatible across systems. Economies of scale
might well be achieved by consolidating these
scattered juvenile justice data operations.
5. Disparity of data capacity compared to
other disciplines, lack of investment in juvenile
justice. Other state youth serving departments
or realms in California have improved the
capacity and utility of the data needed to
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageL
of?
support their operations. Statewide data and
case management systems at both the Department of
Education and the Department of Social Services
have been modernized and upgraded by supporting
state appropriations. By contrast, no
significant state investment or appropriation to
upgrade juvenile justice data capacity has been
made in recent history.
6. Lack of performance outcome measures for
the juvenile justice system. California lacks
standard and statewide outcome performance
outcome measures for the juvenile justice system.
An example referenced repeatedly in this report
is the lack of any standard or statewide
performance outcome measure for recidivism.
7. Transparency and availability of
statewide juvenile justice information.
California has no central website or data
clearinghouse for retrieval of juvenile justice
program, caseload, facility or performance
outcome information. Recommendation 5 addresses
this need as required by the enabling legislation
for the Working Group.
The Working Group reviewed juvenile data in other states,
and the report describes a number of approaches taken in
other states. Among other information the report notes:
Some states have moved well beyond
the bare-bones data repository model by
designing and using statewide juvenile justice
case-management systems and networks. Virginia,
through its Department of Juvenile Justice,
retained the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency to develop a statewide case
management network whereby case-level data from
arrest through disposition and supervision
is entered by county agencies into the
statewide data network.
Pennsylvania, with assistance from the
MacArthur Foundation, replaced a fractured
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageM
of?
patchwork of local data systems with a modern,
statewide Juvenile Court Case Management
System putting all counties on the same
case management network. This system
includes risk and needs assessment
information and diversion and placement
options that probation case workers can
access for case processing purposes. Arizona
is expanding its Juvenile On-Line Tracking
case management programming, extensively
developed first in Maricopa County, into a
statewide juvenile justice case management
network.
Even where a state juvenile justice
data system serves mainly as a data repository
rather than as an active case management
system, the breadth and depth of case-level
data collected on exemplary other-state
systems far exceeds the capacity or design
of the California system. Florida's Department
of Justice collects massive data on every
juvenile referral, prosecution, diversion and
placement made in that state. Their system
captures and annually reports extensive outcome
data for each public or private youth placement
or correctional facility, including
recidivism and cost-per-case outcome measures
for each dispositional placement. Texas
provides another example of a state juvenile
justice data system that collects case-level
data that is far more exhaustive than the
short list captured by JCPSS in California; see,
for example, the data elements listed for the
Texas Electronic Data Interchange on their
department website at
http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/statistics/statisticsdet
ail.aspx.
In state after state examined by the
Working Group, we found routine collection and
reporting of recidivism outcomes for children at
multiple stages of supervision and placement.
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageN
of?
Other states were also distinguished from
California by a state-level capacity to use data
systems to generate specialized studies or
reports on juvenile justice populations,
practices and reforms. These include recidivism
studies on defined offender populations (for
example, state-incarcerated youth, crossover
youth), information on risk and needs assessment
tools, analyses pertaining to juveniles
transferred to adult criminal courts and
reports on other practice and policy issues.
In 2015, the state of Texas, with
help from the Pew Charitable Trust,
accessed its juvenile justice data bank to
produce a widely heralded report on
outcomes for juveniles moved from state
institutions to local probation control, under
that state's 2007 juvenile justice realignment
reform. The Texas Closer to Home study compared
recidivism outcomes for different realignment
service cohorts, broken out by county and type of
program to which realigned offenders were
referred. This landmark report is now helping
Texas counties with higher recidivism rates make
adjustments in their juvenile justice
programming, in order to improve performance
results.
Washington State is notable for its
approach to the evaluation and funding of
juvenile justice programs.
Other states provide models of juvenile
justice information sharing that may be
worthy of replication in California. The
Georgia Juvenile Justice Data Clearinghouse
presents basic juvenile justice caseload
and processing information in
user-friendly format on a central site
developed though a collaborative multi-agency
group under the aegis of the Georgia
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice maintains
SB 1031 (Hancock ) PageO
of?
a website that is replete with information on
caseloads, facilities and outcomes pertaining to
its juvenile justice population, including
recidivism reports for youth released from each
type of juvenile justice facility in the state.
Juvenile justice department or agency sites
in Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois and
Virginia, among others, offer multiple
windows and options for the review and
retrieval of juvenile justice system and
performance information.
-- END -