BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
2
7
AB 1276 (Bloom) 6
As Amended May 13, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
AA:mc
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS:
PRISON
HISTORY
Source: Human Rights Watch; Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office; Anti-Recidivism Coalition
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Communities
United Institute; Children's Defense Fund of
California; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Los
Angeles Probation Officers Union; Riverside Sheriffs'
Association; numerous individuals
Opposition:None known on current version
Assembly Floor Vote: N/A
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN FOR YOUTH
OFFENDERS AT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
(CDCR), WHO ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 22?
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct a youth offender
Institution Classification Committee review at reception to
provide special classification consideration for every youth
offender under 22 years of age, as specified.
Current law generally provides a statutory framework for
remanding certain cases involving minors who are 14 years of age
and older and alleged to have committed a crime from the
juvenile court to adult criminal court. (Welfare and
Institutions Code ('WIC") �� 602 & 707.)
Current law provides that no person under the age of 14 years
shall be committed to a state prison or be transferred thereto
from any other institution. (Welfare and Institutions Code
("WIC") � 211 (a).)
Current law further provides that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no person under the age of 16 years shall be
housed in any facility under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). (WIC � 211(b).)
This bill would require CDCR to conduct a youth offender
Institution Classification Committee ("ICC") review at reception
to provide special classification consideration for every youth
offender. This bill would define "youth offenders" to be
individuals committed to CDCR who are under 22 years of age.
Youth Offender ICC Composition
This bill would require that the youth offender ICC consist of
the staff required by department regulations at any ICC, however
at least one member shall be a department staff member specially
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 3
trained in conducting the reviews. This bill would require that
training include, but not be limited to, adolescent and young
adult development and evidence-based interviewing processes
employing positive and motivational techniques.
Purpose of Youth Offender ICC Review
This bill would provide that the purpose of the youth offender
ICC review is to "meet with the youth offender and assess the
readiness of a youth offender for a lower security level or
placement permitting increased access to programs and to
encourage the youth offender to commit to positive change and
self-improvement. A youth offender shall not be classified at
the security level corresponding with his or her placement score
if his or her in-custody behavior indicates he or she can be
safely placed at a lower security level."
Youthful Offender Placement Classification
This bill would require that a youthful offender "be classified
for placement at a lower security level facility than
corresponds with his or her placement score or in a placement
that permits increased access to programs based on consideration
of all of the following factors:
(1) Recent in-custody behavior while housed in juvenile or adult
facilities.
(2) Demonstrated efforts of progress toward self-improvement in
juvenile or adult facilities.
(3) Family or community ties supportive of rehabilitation.
(4) Evidence of commitment to working towards self-improvement
with a goal of being a law-abiding member of society upon
release."
This bill would require CDCR to "transfer a youth offender to a
lower security level facility if the department determines,
based on the totality of the circumstances, that the youth
offender would not increase the safety risk of the lower
security level facility."
This bill would require that if CDCR "determines a youth
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 4
offender is ready for a housing placement permitting increased
access to programs, the youth offender shall be transferred to
that housing. If the youth offender demonstrates he or she is a
safety risk to inmates, staff, or the public, and does not
otherwise demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation, the youth
offender shall be reclassified and placed at a security level
that is consistent with department regulations and procedures.
This bill would provide that a youth offender who at his or her
initial Youth Offender ICC review "is denied a lower security
level than corresponds with his or her placement score or did
not qualify for placement permitting increased access to
programs due to previous incarceration history and was placed in
the highest security level shall nevertheless be eligible to
have his or her placement reconsidered (as specified) at his or
her annual review until reaching 25 years of age."
This bill would require that if "at an annual review it is
determined that the youth offender has had no serious rule
violations for one year, the department shall consider whether
the youth would benefit from placement in a lower level facility
or placement permitting increased access to programs."
This bill would require CDCR to "review and, as necessary,
revise existing regulations and adopt new regulations regarding
classification determinations made pursuant to this section, and
provide for training for staff."
This bill makes legislative findings and declarations concerning
youthful offenders, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 5
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 6
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
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.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 7
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
In California, younger people between the ages of 18
and 22 entering the adult prison system are more
likely than older prisoners to be sent directly to the
highest security prison yards with the most dangerous
inmates and the least amount of programming. The
result is a lost opportunity for the state to reduce
recidivism.
Research shows that incarcerated youth are especially
vulnerable to physical and sexual assault and
psychological harm including depression and suicide.
At this age, youth are still maturing and are highly
sensitive to both positive and negative influences.
Their environment has a huge impact on their
development and life choices. If youth entering the
adult prison system are placed in the most dangerous
environments, odds are that they will not choose a
lifestyle that leads them away from bad choices and
instead sets them back on a path to reoffend or remain
in prison longer. However, studies also show that
positive influences have just as much of an impact on
this age group - the availability of education and
vocational training in prison, particularly for youth,
can significantly reduce recidivism and set an
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 8
incarcerated youth on a better path.
AB 1276 establishes a process that directs CDCR to
utilize the already existing Youth Offender
Institutional Classification Committee, which assesses
youth for placement at their adult facility, to place
a youth between the ages of 18-22 whenever possible at
a lower custody level with the most programming
available. This will also afford an opportunity for
the Committee to encourage youth to commit to positive
change and self-improvement. AB 1276 will take
prison's most vulnerable and malleable population and
give those youth a better opportunity of choosing a
path that leads to success outside of prison if they
are released.
2. CDCR Classification; What This Bill Would Do
Generally, all CDCR inmates are assessed a classification
"score" when they first arrive at prison. As explained in
informational material made available online by the Prison Law
Office, "points are added based on the prisoner's background,
sentence length and any prior misbehavior in jail or prison. A
higher classification score generally means that the prisoner
will be placed in a facility that has higher security. However,
the CDCR also takes into account special case factors,
administrative determinants, and mental health or disability
needs; such factors are documented on the prisoner's
classification score sheet by letter codes. A prisoner's
classification should be updated at least once a year."
This bill would require CDCR to establish a special
classification approach for inmates under the age of 22. The
classification review would be conducted by the same committee
that reviews older inmates, but at least one member of the ICC
would be required to be specially trained in areas like
adolescent and young adult development, and evidence-based
interviewing processes employing positive and motivational
techniques. The bill also would require the review assess the
readiness of a youth offender for a lower security level or
placement permitting increased access to programs and to
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 9
encourage the youth offender to commit to positive change and
self-improvement. The bill would require that a youthful
offender be classified for placement at a lower security level
facility than corresponds with his or her placement score or in
a placement that permits increased access to programs based on
consideration of certain factors, noted above. The bill also
provides for transfers to lower level security based on improved
safety risks, and provides for ongoing reviews of these
placements, as specified. This bill broadly reflects an
approach that has been piloted by CDCR informally at the
California Institute for Men.
SHOULD INMATES UNDER THE AGE OF 22 BE CLASSIFIED FOR PLACEMENT
IN PRISON BY AN ICC THAT INCLUDES A MEMBER WITH SPECIALIZED
TRAINING REGARDING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS?
SHOULD THE PLACEMENT OF INMATES UNDER THE AGE OF 22 REFLECT
ASSESSMENTS AND FACTORS UNIQUE FROM THOSE APPLIED TO OLDER
INMATES, AS PROPOSED BY THIS BILL?
3. Background: The Nature of Juvenile Offenders and Criminal
Punishment
The growing body of scientific research describing the
differences between adult and juvenile offenders has informed a
number of state and federal court cases over the last several
years concerning youthful offenders. In 2010, the United States
Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence a
youth who did not commit homicide to a sentence of life without
the possibility of parole (LWOP). ( Graham v. Florida (2010) 130
S.Ct. 2011.) The Court discussed the fundamental differences
between juvenile and adult offenders, and reasserted its earlier
findings from Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551(prohibiting
the death penalty for defendants who committed their crimes
before the age of 18), that juveniles have lessened culpability
than adults due to those differences.
In the 2005 Roper decision, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, explained in part:
(More)
. . . The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and
irresponsible behavior means "their irresponsible
conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an
adult." . . . Their own vulnerability and comparative
lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean
juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be
forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in
their whole environment. . . . The reality that
juveniles still struggle to define their identity means
it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous
crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of
irretrievably depraved character. From a moral
standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings
of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater
possibility exists that a minor's character
deficiencies will be reformed. Indeed, "[t]he
relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from
the fact that the signature qualities of youth are
transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and
recklessness that may dominate in younger years can
subside." . . . (citation); see also Steinberg & Scott
1014 ("For most teens, [risky or antisocial] behaviors
are fleeting; they cease with maturity as individual
identity becomes settled. Only a relatively small
proportion of adolescents who experiment in risky or
illegal activities develop entrenched patterns of
problem behavior that persist into adulthood"). Roper
v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551, 569-570 [some citations
omitted].)
More recently, the Court reaffirmed these views. Justice
Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and
Sotomayor, noted in 2010:
No recent data provide reason to reconsider the
Court's observations in Roper about the nature of
juveniles. As petitioner's amici point out,
developments in psychology and brain science continue
to show fundamental differences between juvenile and
adult minds. For example, parts of the brain involved
in behavior control continue to mature through late
adolescence. See Brief for American Medical
(More)
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 11
Association et al. as 16-24; Brief for American
Psychological Association et al. as 22-27. Juveniles
are more capable of change than are adults, and their
actions are less likely to be evidence of
"irretrievably depraved character" than are the
actions of adults. . . . It remains true that
"[f]rom a moral standpoint it would be misguided to
equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult,
for a greater possibility exists that a minor's
character deficiencies will be reformed." . . .
( Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 68 [some
citations omitted].)
The uncodified legislative findings and declarations of this
bill restate similar quotations from decisional law, citing
Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S. Ct. 2455, where the Court stated
in part:
First, children have a " 'lack of maturity and an
underdeveloped sense of responsibility,' " leading to
recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking. .
. . Second, children "are more vulnerable . . . to
negative influences and outside pressures," including
from their family and peers; they have limited
"contro[l] over their own environment" and lack the
ability to extricate themselves from horrific,
crime-producing settings. . . . And third, a child's
character is not as "well formed" as an adult's; his
traits are "less fixed" and his actions less likely to
be "evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity]." . . .
Our decisions rested not only on common sense--on what
"any parent knows"--but on science and social science
as well. . . . In Roper, we cited studies showing
that " '[o]nly a relatively small proportion of
adolescents' " who engage in illegal activity "
'develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior.' . .
. And in Graham, we noted that "developments in
psychology and brain science continue to show
fundamental differences between juvenile and adult
minds"--for example, in "parts of the brain involved
in behavior control." . . . We reasoned that those
AB 1276 (Bloom)
Page 12
findings--of transient rashness, proclivity for risk,
and inability to assess consequences -- both lessened
a child's "moral culpability" and enhanced the
prospect that, as the years go by and neurological
development occurs, his " 'deficiencies will be
reformed.' . . . (Miller, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2464-5
(citations omitted).)
The bill's findings conclude in part that "(a)menable young
adults incarcerated in state prisons should have access to
programs and living circumstances that increase the likelihood
of rehabilitation during these important developmental stages. .
. . The purpose of this act is to establish a mechanism by
which the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will make
individual assessments of people entering prison under 22 years
of age and classify these individuals at lower custody level
facilities whenever possible."
IS THIS BILL CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND
DECISIONAL LAW ADDRESSING THE "FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
JUVENILE AND ADULT MINDS"?
***************