BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
4
4
SB 1447 (Padilla) 7
As Introduced February 19, 2010
Hearing date: March 23, 2010
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
LOCAL JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES:
INSPECTIONS
HISTORY
Source: Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CALIFORNIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL JUVENILE LAW BE
CLARIFIED BY REQUIRING THE CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY TO
INSPECT AND COLLECT RELEVANT DATA FROM ANY FACILITY THAT MAY BE USED
FOR THE SECURE DETENTION OF MINORS?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to better assure compliance with the
federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 5601 et seq.) by requiring the Corrections
Standards Authority to inspect and collect relevant data from
any facility that may be used for the secure detention of
minors.
Current law establishes within the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation the Corrections
Standards Authority ("CSA").<1> (Penal Code 6024.)
Current law provides that CSA is responsible for establishing
minimum standards for state and local correctional facilities.
(Penal Code 6030.) CSA also is required to inspect each local
detention facility in the state biennially. (Penal Code
6031.)
Current law requires CSA to "adopt minimum standards for the
operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement
of minors." (WIC 210), and to "develop guidelines for the
operation and maintenance of nonsecure placement facilities for
persons alleged or found to be persons coming within the terms
of Section 601 or 602 (delinquent minors)." (WIC 210.1.)
Current law also requires CSA to "adopt regulations establishing
standards for law enforcement facilities which contain lockups
for adults and which are used for the temporary, secure
detention of minors upon arrest. (WIC 210.2.)
Current law requires CSA to "conduct a biennial inspection of
each jail, juvenile hall, lockup, or special purpose juvenile
hall situated in this state that, during the preceding calendar
year, was used for confinement, for more than 24 hours, of any
minor," as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC")
209(a).)
This bill would amend this section to add the following
---------------------------
<1> Formerly known as the Board of Corrections, CSA was
created as part of the Governor's reorganization as enacted by
SB 737 (Romero)(Stats. 2005, Ch. 10).
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageC
subdivision:
In accordance with the federal Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
5601 et seq.), the Corrections Standards Authority
shall inspect and collect relevant data from any
facility that may be used for the secure detention of
minors.
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:
"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
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageD
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
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
---------------------------
<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).
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageE
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
The author states:
SB 1447 would grant the Corrections Standards
Authority (CSA) the statutory authority to conduct
inspections and collect data from facilities that may
be used to house minors, in accordance with the
federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 2002 (JJDPA). The JJDPA provides grants to
participating states to combat juvenile delinquency.
The act requires the State's Designated State Agency,
which is CSA for California, to inspect these
facilities ensuring they meet certain criteria, such
as, adequate sight and sound separation between
juveniles and adult males. The act also requires
annual reporting of CSA's inspections. The JJDPA
requires the CSA to inspect all facilities that may
house juveniles. Currently, the CSA does not have
authority to enter all of these facilities. CSA is
required under the JJDPA to inspect these facilities
in order to remain in compliance with the Act and
continue to receive federal Title II Formula Grants
for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention.
2. What This Bill Would Do
The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) monitors California's
compliance with the core requirements of the federal Juvenile
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageF
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (JJDPA).<3> This
bill authorizes the Corrections Standards Authority to inspect
and collect relevant data relating to any facility that has the
potential to hold juveniles in secure detention. This change is
proposed by the administration in response to recommendations
made during a field audit of California's compliance monitoring
system from July 28-31, 2008, by the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
3. Background
Under the federal JJDPA, CDCR advises Committee staff that
California has received the following Title II funds over the
past three years, administered by CSA:
2009: $7.2 million
2008: $6.7 million
2007: $7.5 million
There currently are sixteen programs being funded under the
Title II program. The following summary prepared in a CSA
document<4> provides some additional context to this bill:
(More)
---------------------------
<3> Pub. L. No. 93-415 (1974), 42 U.S.C. 5601.
<4> Compliance Monitoring Manual, Corrections Standards
Authority (Dec. 2006). ( http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/
Divisions_Boards/CSA/Admin/Board/09-March_Agenda_Items/March_09/A
genda_Item_G/ Revised
_Agenda_Item_G/Title_II_Application_2009_w-Attachments/Agenda_Ite
m_G_Attachment_B.doc.)
The JJDPA was originally enacted in 1974, and most
recently revised in 2002, to provide state and local
agencies with support to prevent juvenile delinquency
and establish a juvenile justice system with the best
interests of the juvenile as a priority. The JJDPA
requires that states comply with the following four
core protections in order to receive Formula Grants,
which target juvenile delinquency and prevention:
1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)
2. Separation of juveniles from adults in institutions
(Separation)
3. Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups
(Jail Removal)
4. Reduction of Disproportionate Minority Contact
(DMC)
One of the goals of the JJDPA was to eliminate both
inappropriate placement and exposure of juveniles to
adult offenders while under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile justice system. Monitoring of the first
three core protections will ensure that juveniles
remain protected while under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile justice system.
California is also committed to ensuring the welfare
of all juveniles involved in the juvenile justice
system. The following compliance monitoring plan has
been established to demonstrate California's
commitment to this principle.
Compliance Monitoring Authority
The Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), among its
various duties, is statutorily mandated to establish
regulations for local detention facilities and local
juvenile detention facilities, and to biennially
inspect these facilities for compliance with these
regulations. The CSA is also responsible for
(More)
SB 1447 (Padilla)
PageH
monitoring compliance with three of the four core
protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 2002 (JJDPA). The CSA monitors
compliance with the JJDPA in conjunction with its
biennial inspection cycle and through data collection
and verification. The CSA annually reports its
compliance monitoring findings to the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
. . .
Monitoring Universe
The CSA queries each local adult and juvenile
detention facility on an annual basis to determine
their status and to verify whether or not minors
and/or status offenders and nonoffenders will be held.
Facilities are required to respond to such query by
February of each year. Based upon these responses,
the CSA compiles its monitoring universe for the year.
Appendix C contains forms used to query detention
facilities and define the monitoring universe.
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Minimum
Standards for Local Detention Facilities and Title 15,
Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities defines
these types of facilities to be queried based upon
their potential to hold minors. These facilities are
also monitored for compliance with JJDPA regulations
and state law.
***************