BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
6
0
AB 2607 (Skinner) 7
As Amended March 24, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
POST-DISPOSITION DETENTION
HISTORY
Source: Children's Advocacy Institute
Prior Legislation: AB 2496 (Steinberg) - 2002, vetoed
Support: AFSCME, AFL-CIO; California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice; California Police Chiefs Association;
California Probation, Parole and Correctional
Association; Children Now; East Bay Children's Law
Offices; Juvenile Court Judges of California; John
Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes; Legal
Advocates for Children and Youth; National Association
of Social Workers, California Chapter; Peace Officers
Research Association of California; Youth Law Center
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 62 - Noes 0
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A PERSON IN JUVENILE DETENTION BE RELEASED UPON AN
OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT ORDER UNLESS THE COURT DETERMINES THAT A
DELAY IN THE RELEASE FROM DETENTION IS REASONABLE, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) require that a person be
released from juvenile detention upon an out-of-home placement
order unless the court determines that a delay in the release
from detention is reasonable, as specified; and 2) enumerate
specific circumstances where such a delay is not reasonable.
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):
Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in
conformity with the interests of public safety and
protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance
that is consistent with their best interest, that
holds them accountable for their behavior, and that
is appropriate for their circumstances. This
guidance may include punishment that is consistent
with the rehabilitative objectives of this chapter.
(Id.)
Current law expressly defines the scope and nature of
"punishment" in the juvenile court:
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 3
As used in this chapter, "punishment" means the
imposition of sanctions. It shall not include a
court order to place a child in foster care as
defined by Section 727.3. Permissible sanctions may
include the following:
(1) Payment of a fine by the minor.
(2) Rendering of compulsory service
without compensation performed for the
benefit of the community by the minor.
(3) Limitations on the minor's
liberty imposed as a condition of probation
or parole.
(4) Commitment of the minor to a
local detention or treatment facility, such
as a juvenile hall, camp, or ranch.
(5) Commitment of the minor to the
Department of the Youth Authority.
"Punishment," for the purposes of this chapter, does
not include retribution. (Id.)
Current law provides that when a minor is adjudged a delinquent
ward of the court, "the court may make any and all reasonable
orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance,
and support of the minor . . . ," including the following:
A ward may be ordered to be on probation without
supervision of the probation officer. The court, in so
ordering, may impose on the ward any and all reasonable
conditions of behavior as may be appropriate, as specified;
(WIC � 727 (a)(2))
In cases where the ward is subject to probation
supervision, the court shall order the care, custody, and
control of the minor or nonminor to be under the
supervision of the probation officer who may place the
minor or nonminor in any of the following:
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 4
(A) The approved home of a relative or the approved home of
a nonrelative, extended family member, as specified;
(B) A suitable licensed community care facility, as
specified; and
(C) With a foster family agency, as specified. (WIC �
727(a)(3).)
This bill would provide that a minor or nonminor shall be
released from juvenile detention upon an out-of-home placement
order unless the court determines that a delay in the release
from detention is reasonable, as specified.
Current law provides that "whenever a person has been adjudged a
ward of the juvenile court and has been committed or otherwise
disposed of as provided in this chapter for the care of wards of
the juvenile court, the court may order that the ward be
detained in the detention home, or in the case of a ward of the
age of 18 years or more, in the county jail or otherwise as the
court deems fit until the execution of the order of commitment
or of other disposition. (WIC � 737(a).)
Current law further provides that in "any case in which a minor
is detained for more than 15 days pending the execution of the
order of commitment or of any other disposition, the court shall
periodically review the case to determine whether the delay is
reasonable. These periodic reviews shall be held at least every
15 days, commencing from the time the minor was initially
detained pending the execution of the order of commitment or of
any other disposition, and during the course of each review the
court shall inquire regarding the action taken by the probation
department to carry out its order, the reasons for the delay,
and the effect of the delay upon the minor." (WIC � 737(b).)
This bill would require that all of the following shall not be
considered reasonable delays:
(1) The probation officer's failure to identify a specific,
appropriate, and available placement for the minor in a case
plan, as specified, upon the court issuing an out-of-home
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 5
placement, as specified, if the minor was previously adjudged
to be a dependent child of the court and was in foster care at
the time the petition was filed to adjudicate the minor to be
a ward of the court on the ground that the minor is
delinquent, as specified.
(2) Delays caused by administrative processes, including, but
not limited to, the work load of probation officers.
(3) Delays in convening any meetings between agencies, as
defined.
This bill additionally would make a technical revision to this
section.
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.
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
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 6
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
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:
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 7
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
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.
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 8
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
A small number of foster youth enter the juvenile
justice system each year. Although they make up only
a small portion of the youth in the foster care system
and the delinquency system, they are in unique need of
services, even among the broader population of abused
or neglected children who desperately need support.
Because foster youth are living outside the home of a
parent, behaviors that would earn a severe grounding
or other punishment in a functioning home frequently
rise to criminal matters. Too often, the unique needs
of these youth go unmet.
Existing law gives counties the option of "switching
off" the foster child status of minors who are placed
in juvenile detention. When this occurs, minors often
lose support from the juvenile dependency system,
including social workers, attorneys, and judges who
are intimately familiar with their families,
backgrounds, and needs. These youth may also lose
placements and fall behind or withdraw from school
because they are detained. Because of their complex
issues and needs, including the difficulty of finding
appropriate placements, these youth often spend
additional time in juvenile hall, even after serving
all of the confinement time ordered by the juvenile
court.
Existing law requires early consideration of
appropriate placements for youth who are at-risk of
entering foster care through the juvenile justice
system. Youth in foster care clearly fall under this
requirement.
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 9
But unfortunately, appropriate placements for foster
youth in the juvenile justice system are not
identified early enough in the process. As a result,
foster youth often remain locked up longer than youth
who can return home because suitable placements are
not found in a timely manner.
AB 2607 addresses the inequity faced by foster youth
who are detained longer in juvenile hall because they
do not have safe and functional homes to which they
can return. AB 2607 requires a juvenile court to order
a minor released from custody under the supervision of
a probation officer if the minor is still awaiting
placement after 15 days in juvenile hall, unless the
court determines that the delay in placement is
reasonable. AB 2607 would also prohibit a juvenile
court from determining that certain delays are
reasonable, including, but not limited to, delays
caused by administrative processes. If additional
court hearings and team discussions are needed to
discuss the minor's long-term placement, those
hearings and meetings should occur after the minor has
been released from custody. As a result, AB 2607 will
protect the rights of foster youth and reduce their
unnecessary detention.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require that minors or
nonminors be released from juvenile detention (typically, a
juvenile hall) into placement as ordered by the court, unless
the court determines that a delay in release from detention is
reasonable. The bill also describes specified circumstances
which would not constitute reasonable delay.
3. Background - Juvenile Detention Surveys in California; Prior
Bill
The Board of State and Community Corrections produces quarterly
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 10
"Juvenile Detention Profile Surveys" which reflects some of the
main characteristics of juvenile detention facilities and
juveniles in these facilities. The most recently available
survey, from the second quarter of 2013, provides in a snapshot
that 510 youths were in juvenile halls awaiting placement, 275
were awaiting transport to a camp, and 49 were awaiting
transport to the Division of Juvenile Justice.
(More)
In 2002, this Committee heard a similar bill, AB 2496
(Steinberg), which was vetoed by then-Governor Davis. The
analysis in that bill discussed the problem of "dead time" in
juvenile facilities:
. . . (M)inors serving "dead time" in California
juvenile halls are minors who have had their
disposition (sentencing) hearing and are waiting for
the court's order to be fulfilled. Their
post-disposition detention in juvenile halls is "dead
time" in the sense that this time does not count
against the period they will spend in placement.
Although the Board of Corrections' "one-day snapshot"
data indicates that close to 1,000 youths are waiting
placement are incarcerated in juvenile halls at any
given time, the BOC has not historically collected
length of stay data on youth awaiting placement. . .
.
4. Support
Supporters generally submit this bill will help ensure that
children who have been detained in a juvenile hall are
transferred out of detention as quickly as possible, into the
placement ordered by the court. For example, the East Bay
Children's Law Offices state in part:
AB 2607 addresses the inequity faced by foster youth
who are detained in juvenile hall in part because they
have no homes to return to. Many foster youth are
held in juvenile hall for less serious, non-violent
offenses, although other youth who commit the same
offenses are released to their parents. Studies show
that incarceration, especially extended incarceration,
can be harmful to youth.
Existing law requires early consideration of
appropriate placements for youth who are at-risk of
entering foster care through the juvenile justice
(More)
AB 2607 (Skinner)
Page 12
system. Youth who are already in foster care as
dependents of the court clearly fall under this
requirement. Unfortunately, the reality is that
appropriate placements for foster youth in the
juvenile justice system are not identified early in
the process and foster youth remain locked up until a
suitable placement is found. AB 2607 will protect the
rights of foster youth and reduce unnecessary
detention.
AB 2607 will also benefit all youth who require
out-of-home placement as wards in the juvenile justice
system. Case processing placement delays occur
routinely, resulting in youth doing "dead time" in
custody. During this "dead time," youth are not able
to participate in the programs designed to facilitate
their rehabilitation and successful reunification with
their families. The time spent in juvenile hall
awaiting placement is not credited to their placement
programs, further extending the length of time that
youth spend away from their homes and communities.
AB 2607 emphasizes the importance of timely
consideration of appropriate placements, clarifies the
role of the court in ensuring that unreasonable delays
do not occur, and promotes the public policy of
rehabilitating youth through the provision of
appropriate services and family reunification.
***************