BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
3
5
AB 2350 (Hill) 0
As Amended April 12, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:dl
JUVENILE JUSTICE: STATUS OFFENDERS
HISTORY
Source: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Prior Legislation: AB 1053 (Solorio) - Ch. 268, Stats. 2009
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association; Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union,
AFSCME, Local 685
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 72 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CALIFORNIA LAW BE REVISED TO ENSURE THAT JUVENILE STATUS
OFFENDERS CANNOT BE HELD IN CUSTODY FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS EXCEPT
PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE JUVENILE COMPACT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT, AS
SPECIFIED?
(More)
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that status offenders
cannot be held in custody for more than 24 hours except pursuant
to the Interstate Juvenile Compact, as specified, to assure
compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act.
Current law generally prescribes under what circumstances and
for how long a minor can be detained in any jail, lockup,
juvenile hall, or other secure facility, who is taken into
custody solely upon the ground that he or she is a "status"
offender - that is, a minor who has engaged in prohibited
conduct that is not a crime, as specified.<1> (Welfare and
Institutions Code 207.)
Current law provides that a minor taken into custody upon the
ground that he or she is a status offender "may be held in a
secure facility, other than a facility in which adults are held
---------------------------
<1> Welfare and Institutions Code section 601 provides in
pertinent part: "(a) Any person under the age of 18 years who
persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and
proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or
custodian, or who is beyond the control of that person, or who
is under the age of 18 years when he or she violated any
ordinance of any city or county of this state establishing a
curfew based solely on age is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the
court. (b) If a minor has four or more truancies within one
school year . . . or a school attendance review board or
probation officer determines that the available public and
private services are insufficient or inappropriate to correct
the habitual truancy of the minor, or to correct the minor's
persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper
orders or directions of school authorities, or if the minor
fails to respond to directives of a school attendance review
board or probation officer or to services provided, the minor is
then within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may
adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. . . . ."
(More)
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageC
in secure
custody, in any of the following circumstances:
1. For up to 12 hours after having been taken into
custody for the purpose of determining if there are any
outstanding wants, warrants, or holds against the minor in
cases where the arresting officer or probation officer has
cause to believe that the wants, warrants, or holds exist.
2. For up to 24 hours after having been taken into
custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian
as soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor
to his or her parent or guardian.
3. For up to 24 hours after having been taken into
custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian
as soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor
to his or her parent or guardian, whose parent or guardian
is a resident outside of the state wherein the minor was
taken into custody, except that the period may be extended
to no more than 72 hours when the return of the minor
cannot reasonably be accomplished within 24 hours due to
the distance of the parents or guardian from the county of
custody, difficulty in locating the parents or guardian,
or difficulty in locating resources necessary to provide
for the return of the minor." (Welfare and Institutions
Code 207(b).)
This bill would delete paragraph (3) above, and revise paragraph
(2) above to authorize the detention of a status offender in a
secured facility for up to 24 hours after having been taken into
custody, in order to locate the minor's parent or guardian as
soon as possible and to arrange the return of the minor to his
or her parent or guardian, with the exception of an out-of-state
runaway who is being held pursuant to the Interstate Compact for
Juveniles.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
(More)
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageD
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
(More)
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageE
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<2>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
(More)
---------------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
The author states:
I n the mid 1950s, a number of federal public safety and
juvenile interest entities worked together to create the
Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ), with the purpose of
creating a system whereby status offenders across state lines
could be returned to their families. In 1982, the federal
government passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDP Act) as a means to fund ICJ activities.
By 1986, the ICJ was adopted by all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
In 2008, an audit by the Federal government's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) found that
California was out of state compliance with its regulations
because it stated that an out-of-state status offender could
be held in custody for up to 72 hours. This was out of
compliance with federal funding guidelines, which stated that
a status offender should be held for no more than 24 hours
except if being held pursuant to the ICJ.
As a rule, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) keeps its status offenders in custody
for the least amount of time possible. Now, especially with
prison overcrowding and expensive bed space, CDCR has an
incentive to move status offenders out of custody as quickly
as possible.
However, due to the statutory inconsistency, the OJJDP has
found that CA is not in compliance with federal law, and
therefore will be ineligible for federal grants. The audit
suggested that a statutory change be made to correct the
discrepancy.
If California becomes ineligible, it will lose a significant
amount of funding for juvenile crime prevention. California
gets the largest amount of funding, with $7,272,000 in the
2009 fiscal year alone.
(More)
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageG
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill will provide that status offenders
cannot be held in custody for more than 24 hours except pursuant
to the Interstate Juvenile Compact, as specified, to assure
compliance with the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act.
3. Background
This bill affects minors who are essentially runaways or
habitual truants. These are minors under the age
of 18 years of age who persistently or habitually refuse to obey
reasonable and proper orders or directions of his or her
parents, guardian, or custodian. Similarly, if a minor has four
or more truancies within one school year, he or she falls under
this status offender category. The federal Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was passed
initially in 1974, contained a strong federal policy against
placing non-criminal minors in secure institutions.<3>
California received approximately $7.2 million in JJDPA funding
in fiscal year 2009. In July of 2008, OJJDP issued a compliance
monitoring audit report that recommended what this bill would
do. That report stated in part:
Because (California law) does not limit the time
status offenders may be securely held to
24 hours prior to and immediately following an initial
court hearing, this provision is in conflict with the
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
provision of the JJDP Act. As most judges, intake
workers, and other local facility staff are familiar
with and will give precedence to state law, such a
provision (permitting a 72-hour hold) is likely to
increase violations of federal DSO requirements. In
addition, when a state's DSO rate exceeds 5.7 but is
less than 29.4 per 100,000 juveniles, a finding of
compliance with de minimis exceptions requires that
----------------------
<3> Status Offenses (Steinhart, D.), The Future of Children THE
JUVENILE COURT Vol. 6 No. 3 (Winter 1996).
AB 2350 (Hill)
PageH
all or substantially all of the state's noncompliant
incidents are in violation of state law. The state's
eligibility to claim the de mimimis requirements on
its annual compliance monitoring report is,
therefore, diminished by this provision.
It is recommended that the State seek legislative
Change such that WIC Section 207 more fully comports
with the Federal Act. . . .<4>
***************
---------------------------
<4> Compliance Monitoring Audit Report, State of California,
July 28-31, 2008, OJJDP (On file in Committee offices.)