BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2094
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2010
Counsel: Milena Nelson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2094 (Torrico) - As Amended: April 6, 2010
SUMMARY : Establishes the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
within the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS),
and removes DJJ from the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Specifically, this bill :
1)Creates DJJ within CHHS.
2)Creates within DJJ the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF),
the Division of Juvenile Programs (DJP), and the Division of
Juvenile Parole Operations (DJPO). Each of these three
divisions will be headed by a chief, who is appointed by the
governor with Senate confirmation.
3)Removes DJJ from CDCR.
4)Implements the above changes on January 1, 2010.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates DJJ, JFJ, DJP, and DJOP within the CDCR. (Government
Code Section 12838.3.)
2)Authorizes the governor to appoint, upon the recommendation of
the CDCR Secretary, a chief deputy secretary to oversee these
divisions. (Government Code Section 12838.)
3)Creates CHHS, including the Departments of Health Care
Services, Mental Health, Developmental Services, Public
Health, Social Services, Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Aging,
Rehabilitation, and Community Services and Development. CHHS
also contains the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development, the State Counsel of Developmental Disabilities,
and the Department of Child Support Services. (Government
Code Section 12803.)
AB 2094
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "The state
spends an average of $228,715 a year for each of the 1,400
youths in DJJ's custody, but the results have been dismal. An
analysis prepared for the Alameda Superior Court in 2004 for a
class action law suit, compared California's system with other
states and concluded that the state, once a national model,
now falls behind in every area except cost. The juvenile
justice system has moved away from the rehabilitation and
focused more on punishment, becoming a pipeline into the adult
correctional system. In fact, juveniles in the DJJ system
find themselves in an environment where becoming a gang member
is essential for their survival and learn to become better and
hardened criminals. This bill would take the DJJ out from
under CDCR's supervision and place DJJ under the Health and
Human Services Agency to foster a great focus on
rehabilitation rather than retribution."
2)Purpose of DJJ is Rehabilitative : Unlike the adult
correctional system, the juvenile justice system is intended
to be purely rehabilitative and does not have a punitive
aspect. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 202.)
Although minors within the juvenile justice system can be
punished and even incarcerated, any punishment imposed by the
court must be consistent with the minor's best interest and
the goal of rehabilitation. [Welfare and Institutions Code
Sections 202 and 734; In re Samuel V. (1970) 225 Cal. App. 3d
511, 517.] CHHS does have experience supervising departments
or offices whose primary purpose is rehabilitative and would
be able to use this experience to oversee DJJ and its
rehabilitative programs.
3)CHHS Currently Oversees Services for Juvenile Dependency
System : The juvenile justice system is divided into two parts.
The first part, the juvenile delinquency system, deals with
minors who either violate the Penal Code or are status
offenders, such as habitually truant minors. (Welfare and
Institutions Code Sections 601 and 602.) The second part, the
juvenile dependency system, deals with minors who are abused
and neglected. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300.)
Children who are within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
dependency court receive services through the Department of
AB 2094
Page 3
Social Services, including child welfare services and foster
care.
By placing DJJ within CHHS, services for all minors in the
juvenile justice system would be receiving their services
though CHHS, regardless of whether those minors are within the
jurisdiction of the delinquency or dependency court.
Additionally, some counties allow minors to be classified as
both dependent and delinquent minors, and placement of DJJ
within CHHS might streamline services for these dual-eligible
minors.
4)CHHS Does not have Experience Detaining Incarcerated
Individuals : According to DJJ, their mandate is to protect the
public from criminal activity, including " provid[ing] a range
of training and treatment services for youthful offenders
committed by courts, direct[ing] youthful offenders to
participate in community and victim restoration, assist[ing]
local justice agencies with efforts to control crime and
delinquency, and encourag[ing] the development of state and
local programs to prevent crime and delinquency." [California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvinile Justice, About DJJ, (as of April 8,
2010).] CHHS does not have any experience dealing with many
of the mandates listed above, including assisting local
justice agencies with efforts to control crime and
delinquency.
Additionally, CHHS does not have the experience in actually
detaining people for the protection of the general public.
Although the purpose of the juvenile delinquency system is
rehabilitative, many minors actually detained by DJJ have
committed serious and violent felonies. These minors are
detained for the purpose of rehabilitation; but until such a
time, those minors are still capable of committing serious and
violent crimes. Detention overseen by a less than experienced
department may place the public at risk.
5)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 737 (Romero), Chapter 10, Statutes of 2005, created
AB 2094
Page 4
CDCR, including a DJJ.
b) AB 788 (Maldonado), of the 1999-2000 Legislative
Session, would have revised the purposes of the juvenile
court law to include dispositions intended to accomplish
public safety objectives under a "Balanced Approach to
Restorative Justice" (BARJ). AB 788 was vetoed for not
"specifying that such programs be proven, effective means
of ensuring public safety."
c) SB 668 (Vasconcellos), of the 1997-98 Legislative
Session, would have revised the purposes of the juvenile
court law to include dispositions intended to accomplish
public safety objectives under a BARJ. SB 668 was vetoed
because "SB 668 would do nothing to address this problem,
it would merely be grafting a new label onto the current
system, "and "should only be considered in the context of a
broader substantive and structural reform of the juvenile
justice system . . . ".
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Nelson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744