BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
9
4
5
SB 945 (Liu)
As Amended March 8, 2010
Hearing date: April 20, 2010
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
PROVIDING INFORMATION UPON TERMINATION OF WARDSHIP
HISTORY
Source: Children's Advocacy Institute
Prior Legislation: SB 921 (Jones) - 2009, vetoed
Support: Los Angeles County District Attorney
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
Should probation or parole, depending upon jurisdiction, be required
to provide wards leaving an institution or the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court with information pertaining to their status as a
former foster child, and benefits they may be eligible for as a
former foster child, as specified?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 945 (Liu)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to require probation or parole,
depending upon jurisdiction, to provide wards leaving an
institution or the jurisdiction of the juvenile court with
information pertaining to their status as a former foster child,
and benefits they may be eligible for as a former foster child,
as specified.
Under current law , the purpose of juvenile court law "is to
provide for the protection and safety of the public and each
minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to
preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever
possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her
parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the
safety and protection of the public." (Welfare and Institutions
Code ("WIC") 202.)
Current law generally provides for minors to come under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court due to neglect or abuse, as
specified (WIC 300 et seq.), or as a consequence of delinquent
conduct. (WIC 601, 602.)
Current law provides that the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ"), has
jurisdiction over all educational training and treatment
institutions now or hereafter established and maintained in the
state as correctional schools for the reception of wards of the
juvenile court and other persons committed to the department.
(WIC 1000.)
This bill would require that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, whenever the juvenile court terminates
jurisdiction over a ward, or upon release of a ward from a
facility that is not a foster care facility, a probation officer
or parole officer shall provide the person with both of the
following:
(More)
SB 945 (Liu)
PageC
(1) A written notice stating that the person is a former
foster child and may be eligible for the services and
benefits that are available to a former foster child
through public and private programs, including, but not
limited to, any independent living program for former
foster children.
(2) Information that informs the person of the availability
of, and assistance to enable the person to apply for, and
gain acceptance into, federal and state programs that
provide independent living services and benefits to former
foster children, including, but not limited to, financial
assistance, housing, and educational resources, for which
he or she is or may be eligible.
This bill would provide that its provisions "shall apply to any
ward who was previously adjudged a dependent child of the court
pursuant to Section 300 or a child who at any time has been
placed in foster care," as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
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:
(More)
SB 945 (Liu)
PageD
"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
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
(More)
SB 945 (Liu)
PageE
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.<1>
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 appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
(More)
---------------------------
<1> 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).
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Each year in California more than 4,000 foster
children turn 18 and exit the system. These youth
face significant challenges in their transition to
adulthood and are not faring well as other young
adults. . . .
Our state has created a number of new policies to
assist foster youth. As a result, foster youth who
age out of the system at 18 can access a variety of
assistance and counseling programs. These programs
help with housing, college planning and financing, and
job and financial counseling.
Unfortunately, a segment of the foster youth
population, called "dual status youth," are unable to
access services because they cannot prove their status
as a former foster youth. Dual status youth are
foster youth who have been under the jurisdiction of
both the dependency courts to the juvenile delinquency
court system. When these children emancipate from the
juvenile delinquency court status, rather than from
dependency court status, they are effectively denied
access to private and non-profit programs designed to
assist former foster youth.
While there is no specific provision of California law
that terminates a dual status youth's eligibility for
transitional living services there is no process to
ensure that these children receive proof of their
history in the foster care system. Foster youth who
are moved to the delinquency court system frequently
do not return to their dependency status after
(More)
SB 945 (Liu)
PageG
satisfying their court-ordered detention or treatment
due to the lack of placement availabilities.
These youth fall between the cracks because foster
care programs identify transitional youth based on
their residency. Young people who are wards of the
court (housed in juvenile court or treatment
facilities) do not reside in homes reserved
specifically for foster youth and therefore not able
to prove their status as a foster youth. Although
probation officers who oversee wards for the court are
expected to advise and assist their wards with access
to transitional living services, there is no clear
process for the probation officers to follow to assist
this population.
SB 945 would ensure that upon the release of a ward
from a nonfoster care facility, a probation officer or
parole officer will provide the person with:
A written notice stating that the youth is a former
foster child and may be eligible for the services and
benefits that are available to a former foster child
through public and private programs.
Information that informs the youth of the
availability of federal and state programs that
provide independent living services and benefits to
former foster children. . . .
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require probation or parole,
depending upon jurisdiction, to provide wards leaving an
institution or the jurisdiction of the juvenile court with
information pertaining to their status as a former foster child,
and benefits they may be eligible for as a former foster child,
as specified.
3. Double Referral from Human Services Committee
SB 945 (Liu)
PageH
This bill passed the Senate Committee on Human Services 4-0 on
April 13, 2010.
4. Impact on Probation and Parole
Committee staff is advised that probation already is doing what
is proposed by this bill pursuant to efforts dating back about
five years. An All County Letter issued by the Department of
Social Services dated November 2, 2005, states:
Manual of Policies and Procedures, Section
31-236(i)(4)(F), states that a youth be provided with
"a proof of county dependency status ?" which may be
used to enable them to apply for sources of
post-emancipation financial support including
emancipation stipends, Supportive Transitional
Emancipation Program (STEP), Transitional Housing
Programs, educational scholarships and grants, and
health care. While all counties currently comply with
this requirement by providing youth with some form of
documentation, the type and framework of these
documents are varied. . . .
Similarly, Committee staff understands that the Division of
Juvenile Justice is in the process of making some changes to
their information systems that would be consistent with this
bill.
***************