(1)Existing law permits minors who are detained in juvenile hall for habitual disobedience, truancy, or curfew violation to be held in the same facility as minors who are detained for violating any law or ordinance defining a crime, if they do not come or remain in contact with each other. Existing law also permits the detention of minors in jails and other secure facilities for the confinement of adults if the minors do not come or remain in contact with confined adults and other specified conditions are met.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary detention for a period of 72 hours for the evaluation of a person, including a minor who is dangerous to himself or herself or others, or gravely disabled, as defined.

This bill would prohibit a person confined in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, from being subject to solitary confinement. The bill would also prohibit a person, other than a person described above, who is detained in any secure state or local juvenile facility from being subject to solitary confinement unless certain conditions are satisfied, including that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental disorder. The bill would permit, if those conditions are satisfied, the person to be held in solitary confinement only in accordance with specified guidelines, including that the person be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the person, but no longer than 4 hours. The bill would require each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a person confined in a juvenile facility to request a voluntary time out, as defined, for no longer than 2 hours in a 24-hour period and would require voluntary time outs to be documented. By increasing the duties of local juvenile facilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law establishes a juvenile justice commission in each county, but authorizes the boards of supervisors of 2 or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission. Existing law specifies the membership of these commissions, including that 2 or more members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, and that a regional juvenile justice commission shall consist of not less than 8 citizens.

This bill would increase the membership of a regional juvenile justice commission to no less than 10 members. The bill would also require that 2 or more members of a juvenile justice commission or a regional juvenile justice commission be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth, and one member be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice commission to annually inspect any jail or lockup that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor, and to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.

This bill would instead require a juvenile justice commission to inspect any jail, lockup, or facility that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor and would require, as a part of that inspection, a review of the records of the jail, lockup, or facility relating to the use of solitary confinement. The bill would require the commission to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the county board of supervisors. The bill would require the commission to annually present its report at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and to publish the report on the county governments Internet Web site. The bill also would authorize a commission to publicize its recommendations made to any person charged with administration of the Juvenile Court Law on the county governments Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

By increasing the duties of local commissions and county boards of supervisors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law permits minors who are detained in juvenile hall for habitual disobedience, truancy, or curfew violation to be held in the same facility as minors who are detained for violating any law or ordinance defining a crime, if they do not come or remain in contact with each other. Existing law also permits the detention of minors in jails and other secure facilities for the confinement of adults if the minors do not come or remain in contact with confined adults and other specified conditions are met.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary detention for a period of 72 hours for the evaluation of persons, a person, including minors, a minor who are is dangerous to self himself or herself or others, or gravely disabled, as defined.

This bill would prohibit a person confined in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, from being subject to solitary confinement. The bill would also prohibit a person, other than one a person described above, who is detained in any secure state or local juvenile facility from being subject to solitary confinement unless certain conditions are satisfied, including that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental disorder. The bill would permit, if those conditions are satisfied, the person to be held in solitary confinement only in accordance with specified guidelines, including that the person be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the person, but no longer than 4 hours. The bill would require each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, as prescribed. The bill would authorize a person confined in a juvenile facility to request a voluntary time out, as defined, for no longer than 2 hours and would require voluntary time outs to be documented. By increasing the duties of local juvenile facilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law establishes a juvenile justice commission in each county, but authorizes the boards of supervisors of 2 or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission. Existing law specifies the membership of these commissions, including that 2 or more members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, and that a regional juvenile justice commission shall consist of not less than 8 citizens.

This bill would increase the membership of a regional juvenile justice commission to no less than 10 members. The bill would also require that 2 or more members of a juvenile justice commission or a regional juvenile justice commission be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth, and one member be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice commission to annually inspect any jail or lockup that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor, and to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.

This bill would instead require a juvenile justice commission to inspect any jail, lockup, or facility that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor and would require, as a part of that inspection, a review of the records of the jail, lockup, or facility relating to the use of solitary confinement. The bill would require the commission to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the county board of supervisors. The bill would require the commission to annually present its report at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and to publish the report on the county governments Internet Web site. The bill also would authorize a commission to publicize its recommendations made to any person charged with administration of the Juvenile Court Law on the county governments Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

By increasing the duties of local commissions and county boards of supervisors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law permits minors who are detained in juvenile hall for habitual disobedience, truancy, or curfew violation to be held in the same facility as minors who are detained for violating any law or ordinance defining a crime, if they do not come or remain in contact with each other. Existing law also permits the detention of minors in jails and other secure facilities for the confinement of adults if the minors do not come or remain in contact with confined adults and other specified conditions are met.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary detention for a period of 72 hours for evaluation of persons, including minors, who are dangerous to self or others, or gravely disabled, as defined.

This bill would prohibit a person confined in a juvenile facility who is a an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, from being subject to solitary confinement, and would require that the person be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated facility. confinement. The bill would also prohibit a person, other than one described above, who is detained in any secure state or local juvenile facility from being subject to solitary confinement unless certain conditions are satisfied, including that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to himself or herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental disorder, or poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder. disorder. The bill would permit, if those conditions are satisfied, the person to be held in solitary confinement only in accordance with specified guidelines, including that the person be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the person, but no longer than 4 hours. The bill would require each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, as prescribed. By increasing the duties of local juvenile facilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law establishes a juvenile justice commission in each county, but authorizes the boards of supervisors of 2 or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission. Existing law specifies the membership of these commissions, including that 2 or more members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, and that a regional juvenile justice commission shall consist of not less than 8 citizens.

This bill would increase the membership of a regional juvenile justice commission to no less than 10 members and would require a probation commission to include 2 or more members who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. members. The bill would also require that 2 or more members of a juvenile justice commission, commission or a regional juvenile justice commission, or a probation commission be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth, and one member be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice commission to annually inspect any jail or lockup that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor, and to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.

This bill would instead require a juvenile justice commission and a probation commission to inspect any jail, lockup, or facility that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person minor and would require, as a part of that inspection, a review of the records of the jail, lockup, or facility relating to the use of solitary confinement. The bill would require the commission to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the county board of supervisors. The bill would require the commission to annually present its report at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and to publish the report on the county governments Internet Web site. The bill also would authorize a commission to publicize its recommendations made to any person charged with administration of the Juvenile Court Law on the county governments Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

By increasing the duties of local commissions and county boards of supervisors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law permits minors who are detained in juvenile hall for habitual disobedience, truancy, or curfew violation to be held in the same facility as minors who are detained for violating any law or ordinance defining a crime, if they do not come or remain in contact with each other. Existing law also permits the detention of minors in jails and other secure facilities for the confinement of adults if the minors do not come or remain in contact with confined adults and other specified conditions are met.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary detention for a period of 72 hours for evaluation of persons, including minors, who are dangerous to self or others, or gravely disabled, as defined.

This bill would prohibit a person confined in a juvenile facility who is a danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, from being subject to solitary confinement, and would require that the person be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated facility. The bill would also prohibit a person, other than one described above, who is detained in any secure state or local juvenile facility from being subject to solitary confinement unless certain conditions are satisfied, including that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others that is not the result of a mental disorder, or poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder. The bill would permit, if those conditions are satisfied, the person to be held in solitary confinement only in accordance with specified guidelines, including that the person be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the person, but no longer than 4 hours. The bill would require each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, as prescribed. By increasing the duties of local juvenile facilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law establishes a juvenile justice commission in each county, but authorizes the boards of supervisors of 2 or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission. Existing law specifies the membership of these commissions, including that 2 or more members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, and that a regional juvenile justice commission shall consist of not less than 8 citizens.

Existing law also establishes a probation commission, consisting of not less than 7 members, in lieu of a juvenile justice commission in counties with a population in excess of 6,000,000.

This bill would increase the membership of a regional juvenile justice commission to no less than 10 members and would require a probation commission to include 2 or more members who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. The bill would also require that 2 or more members of a juvenile justice commission, a regional juvenile justice commission, or a probation commission be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth, and one member be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice commission to annually inspect any jail or lockup that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor, and to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.

This bill would instead require a juvenile justice commission and a probation commission to inspect any jail, lockup, or facility that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person and would require, as a part of that inspection, a review of the records of the jail, lockup, or facility relating to the use of solitary confinement. The bill would require the commission to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the county board of supervisors. The bill would require the commission to annually present its report at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and to publish the report on the county governments Internet Web site. The bill also would authorize a commission to publicize its recommendations made to any person charged with administration of the Juvenile Court Law on the county governments Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

By increasing the duties of local commissions and county boards of supervisors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law permits minors who are detained in juvenile hall for habitual disobedience, truancy, or curfew violation to be held in the same facility as minors who are detained for violating any law or ordinance defining a crime, if they do not come or remain in contact with each other. Existing law also permits the detention of minors in jails and other secure facilities for the confinement of adults if the minors do not come or remain in contact with confined adults and other specified conditions are met.

Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, authorizes the involuntary detention for a period of 72 hours for evaluation of persons, including minors, who are dangerous to self or others, or gravely disabled, as defined.

This bill would prohibit a person confined in a juvenile facility who is a danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, from being subject to solitary confinement, and would require that the person be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated facility. The bill would also prohibit a person, other than one described above, who is detained in any secure state or local juvenile facility from being subject to solitary confinement unless certain conditions are satisfied, including that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others that is not the result of a mental disorder, or poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder. The bill would permit, if those conditions are satisfied, the person to be held in solitary confinement only in accordance with specified guidelines, including that the person be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the person, but no longer than 4 hours. The bill would require each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, as prescribed. By increasing the duties of local juvenile facilities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law establishes a juvenile justice commission in each county, but authorizes the boards of supervisors of 2 or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission. Existing law specifies the membership of these commissions, including that 2 or more members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive, and that a regional juvenile justice commission shall consist of not less than 8 citizens.

Existing law also establishes a probation commission, consisting of not less than 7 members, in lieu of a juvenile justice commission in counties with a population in excess of 6,000,000.

This bill would increase the membership of a regional juvenile justice commission to no less than 10 members and would require a probation commission to include 2 or more members who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. The bill would also require that 2 or more members of a juvenile justice commission, a regional juvenile justice commission, or a probation commission be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth, and one member be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law requires a juvenile justice commission to annually inspect any jail or lockup that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor, and to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.

This bill would instead require a juvenile justice commission and a probation commission to inspect any jail, lockup, or facility that, in the preceding calendar year, was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person and would require, as a part of that inspection, a review of the records of the jail, lockup, or facility relating to the use of solitary confinement. The bill would require the commission to report the results of the inspection, together with its recommendations based thereon, in writing, to the juvenile court, the Board of State and Community Corrections, and the county board of supervisors. The bill would require the commission to annually present its report at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and to publish the report on the county governments Internet Web site. The bill also would authorize a commission to publicize its recommendations made to any person charged with administration of the Juvenile Court Law on the county governments Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

By increasing the duties of local commissions and county boards of supervisors, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 124

Author:(Leno) – As Amended Ver:August 17, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes standards and protocols for the placement of juvenile offenders in solitary confinement. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the use of solitary confinement on a person confined in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is gravely disabled, or for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, or retaliation by staff.
   
   

2. Provides that a person confined in any secure state or local juvenile facility, and who is not an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is gravely disabled, shall be subject to solitary confinement only if all of the following are true:
   
   

   1. The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others, which is not the result of a mental disorder.
      
      

   2. All other less-restrictive options to address the risk have been attempted and exhausted.
      
      

   3. The performance of solitary confinement is done in accordance with specified principles.
      
      

3. Requires every juvenile facility to document specific information regarding each use of solitary confinement, and this information is to be available pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

4. Allows a person confined in a juvenile facility to request a revocable voluntary time out, as defined, for no longer than two hours in a 24 hour period. During any voluntary time out, the person may participate in all programming and meals.

5. Changes the composition of local juvenile justice commissions and requires commissions to review records relating to the use of solitary confinement as part of their review of detention facilities and submit specified reports with appropriate recommendations.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Significant cost in the range of $2.7 million (GF) to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the first year, and $2.3 million (GF) every year thereafter. The first year costs includes $340,000 for training, in addition to the ongoing cost $2.2 million for 17.5 positions and $100,000 for higher level of service for endangered youth (at an average of three youth per month and three days per youth) that will need to be escorted 16 hours per day.

2. Significant reimbursable state mandated costs to local juvenile facilities, likely in the millions of dollars (GF).

3. Proponents indicate that current practice has resulted in significant court settlements, and therefore, this bill will result in significant savings. It is possible that statewide-specific standards and protocols could reduce litigation costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, "Solitary confinement is an extremely harmful measure, widely condemned as torture, but unfortunately it is one that continues to be used in the California juvenile justice system under various programmatic titles. Solitary confinement has not been shown to have any rehabilitative or treatment value, and the United Nations has called upon all member countries to ban its use completely on minors."

"SB 124 does not ban the use of solitary confinement completely as many other jurisdictions in the world have done, it merely limits the use of solitary to instances where there is an actual threat to the safety of staff, other youth, or the general security of the facility."

2. Background. Current law states that the purpose of the juvenile court system 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. Current law authorizes the court to place a ward of the court in a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, secure juvenile home, or the Division of Juvenile Facilities, as specified.

The California Code of Regulations Title 15, Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, provides guidelines on the isolation or separation of juveniles from the general population. "Separation" is defined in the regulations as limiting a youth’s participation in regular programming for a specific purpose. While the regulations provide some guidance on the use of solitary confinement on juveniles, there is no specified limit on how long a juvenile may be placed in isolation.

The issue of solitary confinement has been an issue in the past and has resulted in litigation against the California Youth Authority (now DJJ) and various counties. A specific Consent-Decree (Farrell v. Cate) imposed specific guidelines on DJJ. The consent decree requires the DJJ to provide wards with adequate and effective care, treatment and rehabilitation services, including reducing violence and the use of force, improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of lock-ups and providing better education programs. The ongoing case is overseen by a Special Master who issues quarterly reports. The most recent report, dated March 2015, is showing that DJJ is making significant progress in reducing lengthy lock-ups of juveniles. However, the provision, of in the Consent-Decree do not apply to local juvenile facilities

SB 124 applies to all juvenile facilities and provides that juveniles may be placed in solitary confinement for four hours at a time as long as certain procedures and policies are met. Effectively, SB 124 enacts minimum standards and protocols statewide for the use of solitary confinement of juveniles, which will provide additional protections once the consent decree is lifted.

3. Argument in Support: According to the Children's Defense Fund – California, a co-sponsor of this bill, "For over a decade, Los Angeles County has been plagued by litigation and a recently concluded Department of Justice oversight for abuse and problems inside its juvenile facilities. This has cost the county millions of dollars in legal fees and reform efforts. SB 124, if enacted, would create a uniform definition of solitary confinement consistent with national best practices and limit the use of solitary confinement to 4 hours. It would also create a uniform practice of documenting its use.”

4. Argument in Opposition: According to the Chief Probation Officers of California, "The bill fails to take into account a myriad of issues that are present in a facility on any given day that require probation to take action. Fundamentally, in some situations the provisions of this bill are either impossible to implement or implementation may cause harm to the very youth this bill is designed to protect. Chiefs stand behind ensuring best practices are put in place to operate our facilities in the safest manner for all those detained. Ultimately, the broad definition that remains in the bill does not take into account all the types of situations we face daily. Placing a definition in statute instead of relying on a regulatory scheme that can account for a variety of circumstances creates operational hurdles that significantly limit probation's ability to put into place best practices in response to the specific situation presented."

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2015

Counsel: Stella Choe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 124

Author:(Leno) – As Amended Ver:June 1, 2015

As Proposed to be Amended in Commitee

SUMMARY: Establishes standards and protocols for the placement of juvenile offenders in solitary confinement. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the use of solitary confinement on a person confined in a juvenile facility who is an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is gravely disabled.
   
   

2. Provides that a person confined in any secure state or local juvenile facility, and who is not an imminent danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder or who is gravely disabled, shall be subject to solitary confinement only if all of the following are true:
   
   

   1. The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental disorder;
      
      

   2. All other less-restrictive options to address the risk have been attempted and exhausted;
      
      

   3. The performance of solitary confinement is done in accordance with the following principles:
      
      

      1. The person may be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to exceed four hours. The person shall be returned to regular programming or placed in individualized programming that does not involve solitary confinement;
         
         

      2. If a person who is released from solitary confinement and is returned to regular or individualized programming poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to himself or herself, or others, he or she may be placed back into solitary confinement only under the standards and protocols in this bill;
         
         

      3. If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not the result of a mental disorder, the condition shall be monitored closely by custody staff of the juvenile facility; and,
         
         

      4. Consecutive periods of solitary confinement in excess of four hours shall be prohibited.
         
         

3. Prohibits the use of solitary confinement for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, or retaliation by staff.
   
   

4. Requires each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement for each incident when solitary confinement is used, including all of the following:
   
   

   1. The name, age, gender and race of the person subject to solitary confinement;
      
      

   2. The date and time the person was placed in solitary confinement;
      
      

   3. The date and time the person was released from solitary confinement;
      
      

   4. The name and position of the person authorizing the placement of the person in solitary confinement;
      
      

   5. The names of staff involved in the incident leading to the use of solitary confinement;
      
      

   6. A description of circumstances leading to use of solitary confinement;
      
      

   7. A description of alternative actions and sanctions attempted and found unsuccessful; and,
      
      

   8. The dates and times when staff checked in on the person when he or she was in solitary confinement, and the person's behavior during the check.
      
      

5. States that the records created as documentation of each solitary confinement incident and voluntary time outs shall be available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
   
   

6. Provides that if a state or local juvenile facility currently documents the usage of solitary confinement consistent with the requirement in this bill, then duplicative documentation shall not be required.
   
   

7. Allows a person confined in a juvenile facility to request a voluntary time out, as defined, for no longer than two hours. During any voluntary time out, the person must participate in all programming and meals. The person may end his or her voluntary time out at any point upon notifying a staff member. Voluntary time outs must be documented and include the name of the person requesting the time out, his or her signature, when the voluntary time out began and when it ended.
   
   

8. Clarifies that this bill's provisions are not intended to limit the use of single-person rooms or cells for the housing of persons in juvenile facilities.
   
   

9. Defines the following terms:
   
   

   1. "Juvenile facility" includes any of the following:
      
      

      1. A juvenile hall;
         
         

      2. A juvenile camp or ranch;

3. A facility of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJJ);
   
   

4. A regional youth educational facility;
   
   

5. A youth correctional center; or,

6. Any other local or state facility used for the confinement of minors or wards.

2. "Minor" means a person who is any of the following:
   
   

   1. A person under 18 years of age;
      
      

   2. A person under the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction who is confined in a juvenile facility; or,
      
      

   3. A person under the jurisdiction of CDCR, DJJ.
      
      

3. "Solitary confinement" means the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked sleep room or cell alone with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards, correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary confinement does not include confinement of a person in a single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room confinement necessary for required institutional operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes, showering, unit movements, or protection against communicable diseases.

4. "Ward" means a person who has been declared a ward of the court as provided.
   
   

5. "Voluntary time out" means a brief period of time in a sleep room or cell at the written and signed request of the person confined in a juvenile facility.
   
   

1. Changes to the composition of local juvenile justice commissions to require two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth and one member to be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.
   
   

2. Adds two members to the regional juvenile justice commissions and requires two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth and one member to be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.
   
   

3. Requires a juvenile justice commission, as a part of its inspection of jails, lock ups and facilities used for confinement, to review records relating to the use of solitary confinement, as defined.
   
   

4. Requires a juvenile justice commission to report the results of its inspection and its recommendations to the county board of supervisors, in addition to the juvenile court and the Board of State and Community Corrections.
   
   

5. States that the report shall be presented annually as part of a regularly scheduled public meeting of the county board of supervisors, and may be published on the county government’s Internet Web site.
   
   

6. States the Legislative finding that in order to protect the privacy and medical information of persons confined in secure state and local juvenile facilities and held in solitary confinement, it is necessary that identifying information about those persons be kept confidential, thus justifying exemption of this information from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that the purpose of the juvenile court system 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (a).)

2. Provides that 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (b).)
   
   

3. Authorizes minors under the age of 18 years to be adjudged to be a ward of the court for violating any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.)
   
   

4. Provides that when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is delinquent, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor, including medical treatment, subject to further order of the court, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 727, subd. (a).)

5. Existing law authorizes the court to place a ward of the court in a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, secure juvenile home, or the Division of Juvenile Facilities, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726.)
   
   

6. Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §210.)
   
   

7. Provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than seven and no more than 15 citizens. Two or more of the members shall be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 225)
   
   

8. Authorizes, in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission, the boards of supervisors of two or more adjacent counties to agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission consisting of at least 8 citizens, two of whom to be between 14 and 21 years of age if available, and having a sufficient number of members so that their appointment may be equally apportioned between the participating counties. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 226.)
   
   

9. States that it shall be the duty of a juvenile justice commission to inquire into the administration of the juvenile court law in the county or region in which the commission serves. For this purpose the commission shall have access to all publicly administered institutions authorized or whose use is authorized by this chapter situated in the county or region, shall inspect such institutions no less frequently than once a year, and may hold hearings. A judge of the juvenile court shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and production of papers at hearings of the commission. A juvenile justice commission shall annually inspect any jail or lockup within the county that was used to confine a minor for more than 24 hours in the preceding calendar year and issue a written report of the results of such inspection together with its recommendations to the juvenile court and to the Board of Corrections. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 229.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Solitary confinement is an extremely harmful measure, widely condemned as torture, but unfortunately it is one that continues to be used in the California juvenile justice system under various programmatic titles. Solitary confinement has not been shown to have any rehabilitative or treatment value, and the United Nations has called upon all member countries to ban its use completely on minors. It is a practice that endangers mental health and increases risk of suicide, and is often used as a method to control a correctional environment, and not for any rehabilitative purpose. It does not properly address disciplinary issues and more often, it increases these behaviors in youth, especially those with mental health conditions. In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released a study of juvenile facilities across the country which found that 50% of youth who committed suicide where in solitary confinement at the time of their suicide. Further, 62% of the suicide victims had a history of isolation.
   
   

"SB 124 does not ban the use of solitary confinement completely as many other jurisdictions in the world have done, it merely limits the use of solitary to instances where there is an actual threat to the safety of staff, other youth, or the general security of the facility. This bill sets a reasonable statewide baseline to protect youth, and it is long overdue. California is now behind 20 other states in banning punitive solitary confinement for youth, it is time that we create a statewide policy governing this practice in order to provide a safer environment for youth and staff, better rehabilitative outcomes for youth, and protection for our counties against costly and damaging lawsuits stemming from the overuse of solitary confinement."

2. Background: According to the background materials provided by the author, "Title 15 regulations fail to provide specific guidelines around the use of solitary confinement, oftentimes used interchangeably with terms like 'separation.' Title 15 charges facility administrators to develop written policies and procedures regarding the use of separation, but does not provide additional guidance or limitations except that 'separated youth shall not be denied normal privileges at the facility, except when necessary to accomplish the objectives of separation.' Some juvenile corrections officials have denied that they use solitary confinement because the practice of isolating youth from 21-23 hours a day, for weeks and months at a time, exists under different definitions and programmatic titles in California’s juvenile facilities.
   
   "The use of solitary confinement is clearly documented in both state and local juvenile facilities. Despite a longstanding consent decree in effect since 2004, an internal CDCR audit found continuing abuses in the Division of Juvenile Facilities as late as 2011, including youth locked up in their cells for more than 23 hours a day. Additionally, in a recent 2014 report released by Barry Krisberg of the Warren Institute at UC Berkeley, youth in the most restrictive current program at DJJ known as the “Behavior Treatment Program,” were required to receive only 3 hours outside of their cell, and were typically there for approximately 60 days. Despite some improvements in state conditions since the 2011 audit, California cannot rely solely on a temporary consent decree, and it is critical that statutory definitions and parameters on the use of isolation be established going forward. At the local level, the abuse of solitary confinement has been alarming. A federal class-action lawsuit has been filed against Contra Costa’s juvenile hall for youth with disabilities who were placed in solitary confinement and denied education as a punishment. That case was recently settled by the county, and the conditions of the settlement are nearly identical to the provisions of SB 124, clearly demonstrating that the parameters established in the bill can be implemented at the county level. [Footnotes omitted.]"
   
   

3. Consent-Decree: Farrell v. Cate: Historically, the use of solitary confinement in DJJ, formerly the California Youth Authority (CYA), has posed significant issues and concerns. In 2003 two mental-health experts conducted a study and reported on the CYA's programs and services. (See Eric Trubin & Raymond Patterson, Report of Findings of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Services to Youth in California Youth Authority Facilities (Dec. 2003).) According to the report, "[w]ards . . . spend vast amounts of time alone in their cells, a practice that extends not just to those being punished in lockup, but also to those on suicide watch. Isolating individuals with mental-health issues can exacerbate their problems. When wards do attempt suicide, their punishment is often isolation and restriction to cells for days at a time. Once isolated, these wards are monitored via camera while sequestered in rooms that are often dirty and sometimes contain fixtures that can be used to commit suicide. In four facilities, the minimal medical attention provided occurs while such wards are locked in cages. In one particularly unsettling account at the Chaderjian facility, a ward on suicide watch who had been diagnosed with severe depression, schizophrenia, and a personality disorder only received a five-minute visit with a psychiatrist each day." (Benvenue, Turning Troubled Teens Into Career Criminals: Can California Reform the System to Rehabilitate Its Youth Offenders? 38 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. (2007) pp. 48-49.)

As part of comprehensive litigation involving conditions at CYA that commenced in 2003, Farrell v. Cate, CYA, now DJJ, is required to adopt reformed methods for dealing with containment or isolation of wards. (See Consent Decree, Farrell v. Allen (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2004, No. RG 03079344) <http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/farrellcd2.pdf>; Defendant's Notice of Filing DJJ's Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan, Farrell v. Hickman (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2006, No. RG 03079344) <http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/SafetyPlanFinal.pdf>.)

The consent decree requires the DJJ to provide wards with adequate and effective care, treatment and rehabilitation services, including reducing violence and the use of force, improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of lock-ups and providing better education programs. The on-going case is overseen by a Special Master who issues quarterly reports. The most recent report, dated March 2015, is promising, showing that DJJ is making significant progress in reducing lengthy lock-ups of juveniles.

This bill would enact minimum standards and protocol statewide for the use of solitary confinement of juveniles which would provide additional protections once the consent decree is lifted.

4. Regulations Pertaining to Juvenile Detention Facilities: The California Code of Regulations Title 15, Minimum Standards for Juvenile Facilities, provides guidelines on the isolation or separation of juveniles from the general population. "Separation" is defined in the regulations as limiting a youth’s participation in regular programming for a specific purpose.
   
   

Section 1354 of Title 15 requires the facility administrator to develop and implement written policies and procedures addressing the separation of youth for reasons that include, but are not be limited to, medical and mental health conditions, assaultive behavior, disciplinary consequences and protective custody. This section prohibits the denial of normal privileges available at the facility, except when necessary to accomplish the objective of separation. The policies and procedures shall ensure a daily review of separated youth to determine if separation remains necessary.

Section 1359 of Title 15 requires the facility administrator, in cooperation with the responsible physician, to develop and implement written policies and procedures governing the use of "safety rooms." The section provides that the safety room shall be used to hold only those youth who present an immediate danger to themselves or others, who exhibit behavior which results in the destruction of property, or reveals the intent to cause self-inflicted physical harm. A safety room shall not be used for punishment or discipline, or as a substitute for treatment. This section specifies that the policies and procedures shall:

(a) Include provisions for administration of necessary nutrition and fluids, access to a toilet, and suitable clothing to provide for privacy;

(b) Provide for approval of the facility manager, or designee, before a youth is placed into a safety room;

(c) Provide for continuous direct visual supervision and documentation of the youth’s behavior and any staff interventions every 15 minutes, with actual time recorded;

(d) Provide that the youth shall be evaluated by the facility manager, or designee, every four hours;

(e) Provide for immediate medical assessment, where appropriate, or an assessment at the next daily sick call;

(f) Provide that a youth shall be medically cleared for continued retention every 24 hours;

(g) Provide that a mental health opinion is secured within 24 hours; and,

(h) Provide a process for documenting the reason for placement, including attempts to use less restrictive means of control, and decisions to continue and end placement.

Section 1390 provides, when separating the youth for disciplinary reasons, discipline shall be imposed at the least restrictive level which promotes the desired behavior and shall not include corporal punishment, group punishment, physical or psychological degradation.

While the regulations provide some guidance on the use of solitary confinement on juveniles, there is no specified limit on how long a juvenile may be placed in isolation. This bill provides that juveniles may be placed in solitary confinement for four hours at a time as long as certain procedures and policies are met.

5. Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall Law Suit: Recently, Contra Costa County settled a pending lawsuit concerning its use of solitary confinement on juveniles. The lawsuit accused the county’s Probation Department, which oversees the juvenile hall, of holding youth with disabilities in solitary confinement for weeks or months at a time, depriving them of education and allowing them to deteriorate mentally. (Lee, Contra Costa ending solitary confinement at juvenile hall, SF Gate (May 19, 2014).)
   
   According to the settlement documents, Probation will adopt standards which include prohibiting the use room confinement for discipline, punishment, or retaliation, and developing individualized programming for individuals with persistent behavior problems that threaten the safety of the youth or staff or the security of the facility. The settlement provides that a juvenile may be segregated in his or her room for no more than four hours and only if the juvenile's behavior threatens immediate harm to themselves or others. After the four hours, the juvenile must be removed from confinement and the staff must develop specialized individualized programming for the individual in coordination with the office of education, or assess whether the youth should be transported to a mental health facility. (Romney, Contra Costa County to End Solitary Confinement for Juveniles, Los Angeles Times (May 19, 2014).)
   
   

Similar to the settlement terms reached in the Contra Costa County case, this bill generally provides that solitary confinement shall not be used on juveniles unless the juvenile poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility, to himself or herself, or to others that is not the result of a mental disorder. This bill provides that the person may be held in solitary confinement for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward. The period of time that the person is in solitary confinement shall not exceed four hours, and at release the person must be returned to regular programming or placed in individualized programming.

Due to concerns by the opposition that four hours may be insufficient in some cases to deal with a person who continues to pose a threat to others, the author amended this bill to allow a juvenile to be placed back into solitary confinement if the staff determines that the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to himself or others.

6. Proposed Amendments to be Adopted in Committee: This bill will be heard as proposed to be amended. The amendments clarify that the bill's provisions to allow for the separation of a juvenile for medical conditions and to allow a juvenile to ask for a "voluntary time out" with specified limitations.
   
   

7. Argument in Support: According to the Children's Defense Fund – California, a co-sponsor of this bill, "For over a decade, Los Angeles County has been plagued by litigation and a recently concluded Department of Justice oversight for abuse and problems inside its juvenile facilities. This has cost the county millions of dollars in legal fees and reform efforts. Throughout California, we have faced continuous litigation due to the unchecked use of solitary confinement: the 2004 Division of Juvenile Facilities consent decree ('Farrell lawsuit'); the 2008 San Joaquin County lawsuit where youth were in their cells 23 hours or more a day for as much as months on end; the 2009 Sacramento County consent decree for a serious of abuses including the illegal use of extreme isolation; the 2014 San Diego County suicide while in isolation lawsuit; and most recently, a federal class action lawsuit in Contra Costa County which ended in a settlement agreement to curb the widespread practice of solitary on youth with disabilities.
   
   "SB 124, if enacted, would create a uniform definition of solitary confinement consistent with national best practices and limit the use of solitary confinement to 4 hours. It would also create a uniform practice of documenting its use.

"Already, states have enacted far-reaching measures to curb the use of solitary confinement. Several states, including Connecticut, Arizona, Maine, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Missouri, Alaska, New York and Texas, have outright prohibited solitary confinement for juveniles. In 2011, Colorado passed legislation limiting the use of isolation for its adult prisoners and required mental health assessments immediately prior to placement in solitary confinement, resulting in more than $25 million in annual savings. In 2012, Mississippi finalized a consent decree to prohibit minors tried as adults from being placed in solitary confinement. The time has come to limit the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in California."

8. Argument in Opposition: According to the Chief Probation Officers of California, "While we appreciate the amendments taken to this point, they do not go far enough in ensuring that the Chiefs will have the necessary tools available to them to discharge their duty and mission of protecting all the wards in their care. The bill fails to take into account a myriad of issues that are present in a facility on any given day that require probation to take action. Fundamentally, in some situations the provisions of this bill are either impossible to implement or implementation may cause harm to the very youth this bill is designed to protect. Chiefs stand behind ensuring best practices are put in place to operate our facilities in the safest manner for all those detained.

"Ultimately, the broad definition that remains in the bill does not take into account all the types of situations we face daily. Placing a definition in statute instead of relying on a regulatory scheme that can account for a variety of circumstances creates operational hurdles that significantly limits probations ability to put into place best practices in response to the specific situation presented. For example, the definition does not account for cases in which the minor requests the time in their room alone or minors who are sick and prefer to rest in their room during the day. Further, there are instances where two youth get into a fight that results in both persons being a danger to themselves and others and, under the provisions of the bill as currently written, we are prohibited from temporarily confining one of the wards if they should have a mental health disorder, yet can do so with the other ward."

9. Prior Legislation:

1. SB 61 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have established standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement of minors and wards in state and local juvenile facilities. SB 61 was ordered to the inactive file.
   
   

2. SB 970 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have generally prohibited a minor or ward who is detained in, or sentenced to, any juvenile facility or other secure state or local facility from being subject to solitary confinement, as defined, unless the minor or ward poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or to the security of the facility, and all other less-restrictive options have been exhausted, and only in accordance with specified guidelines. SB 970 was never heard.
   
   

3. SB 1363 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have established standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent minors. SB 1363 failed passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Public Defenders Association (Sponsor)
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights (Sponsor)

Children's Defense Fund – California (Co-Sponsor)

Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)

A New Way of Life Reentry Project

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

American Civil Liberties Union of California

American Friends Service Committee

Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Sacramento

Aspiranet

Association of Black Psychologists

AWARE-LA

Bend of the Arc: a Jewish Partnership for Justice

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Catholic Conference of Bishops

California Civil Liberties Union

California Coalition for Youth

California Council of Churches Impact

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Psychological Association
California State University Northridge Social Worker Society

California Teachers Association

California Youth Empowerment Network

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Children Now

Children's Law Center of California

Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform – California

Coalition for Engaged Education

Communities United for Restorative Justice
Community Asset Development Redefining Education

Conference of California Bar Associations

Congregation Rodef Sholom

Dignity in Schools

Drug Policy Alliance

East Bay Children's Law Offices

Equality California

Fair Chance Project

Forward Together

Free Indeed Reentry Project, Inc.

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Gay-Straight Alliance Network of California

Human Rights Watch

Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition

InnerCity Struggle

Justice Not Jails

Labor/Community Strategy Center's Community Rights Campaign

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Legal Services for Children

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts

Los Angeles Community Action Network

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles Unified School District

Manifest Works

Mental Health America of California

MutliFaith Voices for Peace and Justice

National Alliance on Mental Illness California

National Association of Black Social Workers, Inc.

National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

National Center for Youth Law

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Nollie Jenkins Family Center

Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Peace Over Violence

Policy Link

Prison Activist Resource Center

Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition

Public Counsel

Resurrection Catholic Community

Riverside Temple Beth El

Sacred Harmony

San Francisco Counsel for Families and Children

Social Justice Learning Institute

Starting Over Inc.

Temple Beth El

The Children's Initiative

University of California, Berkeley, the Underground Scholars Initiative
Urban Peace Movement

Violence Prevention Coalition

W. Haywood Burns Institute

Wilks Law

Women in Non Traditional Employment Roles, YouthBuild
Youth Law Center

#FREEAMERICA

172 private individuals

Opposition

California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Chief Probation Officers of California

Fraternal Order of Police, N. California Probation Lodge 19
Kern County Probation Officers Association

L.A. County Probation Officers Union

Monterey County Probation Association

Probation Peace Officers Association Contra Costa

Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Sacramento County Probation Association

San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers' Association

San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association

Santa Clara County Probation Peace Officers' Union

State Coalition of Probation Organizations

Ventura County Professional Peace Officers' Association

Analysis Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 124

Author: Leno (D), et al.

Amended: 6/1/15

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/7/15

AYES: Hancock, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Monning

NOES: Anderson, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT: Juveniles: solitary confinement

SOURCE: California Public Defenders Association

DIGEST: This bill establishes standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as specified, and makes changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is delinquent, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor, including medical treatment, subject to further order of the court, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 727(a).)

2. Requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 210.)

3. Provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than seven and no more than 15 citizens. And, that two or more of the members be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 225.)

4. Provides that in lieu of county juvenile justice commissions, the board of supervisors of two or more adjacent counties may agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than eight citizens. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 226.)

5. Provides that it shall be the duty of a juvenile justice commission to inquire into the administration of the juvenile court law in the county or region in which the commission serves. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 229.)

6. Provides that a juvenile justice commission shall annually inspect any jail or lockup within the county which in the preceding calendar year was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 229.)

7. Provides that a “juvenile justice commission may recommend to any person charged with the administration of any of the provisions of this chapter such changes as it has concluded, after investigation, will be beneficial. A commission may publicize its recommendations.” (Welfare and Institutions Code § 230.)

This bill:

1. Defines “solitary confinement” to mean “the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked sleep room or cell alone with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards, correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary confinement does not include confinement of a person in a single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room confinement necessary for required institutional operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes, showering, and unit movements.”

2. Provides that solitary confinement cannot be used for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation by staff.

3. Provides that a person may be held in solitary confinement if:

1. The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility;

2. The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others that is not the result of a mental disorder; or

3. The person poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not the result of a mental disorder.

4. Provides that solitary confinement be used in accordance with the following guidelines:

1. The person may be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to exceed four hours.

2. If a person who is released from solitary confinement and is returned to regular or individualized programming poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to himself or herself, or to others, he or she may be placed back into solitary confinement only in accordance with the protections and requirements of this bill, and that confinement shall be treated as a new and separate use of solitary confinement, as specified.

3. If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder, the condition of the person shall be monitored closely by custody staff of the juvenile facility.

5. Requires each local and state juvenile facility document the usage of each incident of solitary confinement, including all of the following:

1. The name of the person subject to solitary confinement;

2. The date and time the person was placed in solitary confinement;

3. The date and time the person was released from solitary confinement;

4. The name and position of person authorizing the placement of the person

in solitary confinement;

5. The names of staff involved in the incident leading to the use of solitary confinement;

6. A description of circumstances leading to use of solitary confinement;

7. A description of alternative actions and sanctions attempted and found unsuccessful; and

8. The dates and times when staff checked in on the person when he or she was in solitary confinement and the person’s behavior during the check.

6. Subjects these records, without identifying information, to public disclosure as specified.

7. Provides that its provisions are not intended to limit the use of single-person rooms or cells for the housing of persons in juvenile facilities.

8. Provides that its provisions do not apply to minors or wards in court holding facilities or adult facilities.

9. Provides that its provisions not be construed to conflict with any law providing greater or additional protections to minors or wards.

10. Requires that two or more of the members of the juvenile justice commission to be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive; two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth; one member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

11. Requires the regional juvenile justice commission to consist of no less than ten members.

12. Requires two or more of the members of a regional juvenile justice commission to be 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. Two or more of the members shall be parents or guardians of previously incarcerated youth. One member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker, with expertise in adolescent development.

13. Authorizes a juvenile justice commission to publicize its recommendations on the county government’s internet website or other publicly accessible medium.

Background

The provisions of this bill apply to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF). Historically, the use of solitary confinement in the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has posed significant issues and concerns. 15 years ago, the Legislature investigated a number of issues relating to conditions at what was then the California Youth Authority (CYA). A former CYA ward testified about his experience on “lock-down” at CYA in the early-to-mid 1990s:

I spent ten months on the Taft lock-down unit for assaultive wards. I was considered a threat to regular staff. For the first month-and-a-half that I was there, I came out of my room for one hour a day. As soon as the shift came on, which is about 6 o’clock in the morning, I would have my handcuffs removed out of my room to shower. My shower would count as part of my hour, as part of my large muscle exercise. I would sometimes have to eat in my handcuffs in front of the TV. That would be part of my large muscle exercise. That would be it. For a month-and-a-half I did that.

Transcript, Joint Oversight Hearing of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Public Safety Regarding the California Department of the Youth Authority, (May 16, 2000.) (http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/jointinformationalhearingonthecalifornia youth authoritymay162000.)

As part of comprehensive litigation involving conditions at DJF which commenced in 2003 – Farrell v. Cate – DJF is required to adopt reformed methods for dealing with containment or isolation of wards. (See Consent Decree, Farrell v. Allen (Nov. 19, 2004) (http://www.prisonlaw .com /pdfs/farrellcd2.pdf.); Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan: Implementing Reform in California (July 10, 2006) http://www. prisonlaw.com/pdfs/SafetyPlanFinal.pdf.) In her most recent (and 30th) report in the Farrell case in November of 2014, Special Master Nancy Campbell wrote in part:

There have been significant reductions in the reliance on solitary confinement in DJJ since 2005. The older and discredited policy and practice of confining youth in a lockup unit for 23 hours a day with minimal services is gone. In its place, the DJJ has developed a range of options that constitute a short term limitation on the program of youth who are in some kind of crisis and who may be a danger to themselves or others. These alternatives include a very short term cool down period in the youngster’s room (or in a separate room) in those few remaining dormitory units. Another option for staff is to utilize “room confinement” in which the youth stays in their own room, usually for less than a day. Youth needing more specialized attention are managed in the Treatment Intervention Program (TIP) that is designed to last only a few days.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Annual costs to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation DJF of less than $2 million (General Fund) annually for increased staffing, data collection, and training on new regulations. The provisions of this bill apply to the DJF population of approximately 700 youth.

• Ongoing likely state-reimbursable local costs potentially in the low millions of dollars (General Fund) statewide for over 100 local juvenile facilities with an average daily population of approximately 7,600 youth, to meet the operational and documentation mandates of this bill.

• Minor annual local costs to effectuate the changes to juvenile justice commission membership. Ongoing costs of about $30,000 (General Fund) to the BSCC for revised and extended training provided to juvenile justice commission members.

• Potentially significant annual state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for local juvenile justice commissions to expand the list of annual inspections of jails and lockup facilities to include any facility within the county used for confinement for more than 24 hours of a minor.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/28/15)

A New Way of Life Reentry Project

Alameda County Board of Supervisors

Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles

American Civil Liberties Union of California

American Friends Service Committee

Anti-Recidivism Coalition

Bend the Arc Bay Area

California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Catholic Conference of Bishops

California Civil Liberties Council

California Coalition for Youth

California Council of Churches IMPACT

California Psychological Association

California Teachers Association

California Youth Empowerment Network

Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Children Now

Children’s Defense Fund - California

Children’s Law Center

Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform

Coalition for Engaged Education

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Conference of California Bar Associations

Congregation Rodef Sholom

Dignity in Schools Campaign

Drug Policy Alliance

East Bay Children’s Law Offices

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Fair Chance Project

Forward Together

Free America

Free Indeed Reentry Project

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

GSA Network

Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club

Human Rights Watch

Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition

InnerCity Struggle

Justice Not Jails

Labor/Community Strategy Center’s Community Rights Campaign

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Legal Services for Children

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children

Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Manifest Works

Mental Health America of California

Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice

NAMI-California

National Association of Black Social Workers

National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice

National Association of Social Workers-California Chapter

National Center for Youth Law

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Nollie Jenkins Family Center

Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

Peace Over Violence

Policy Link

Prison Activist Resource Center

Public Counsel

Resurrection Catholic Community

Sacred Harmony

Social Justice Learning Institute

Starting Over Inc.

Temple Beth El, Aptos, California

Temple Beth El, Riverside, California

The Association of Black Psychologists

Urban Peace Movement

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

W. Haywood Burns Institute

W.I.N.T.E.R. Youth Build

Wilks Law

Youth Justice Coalition

Youth Law Center

Numerous Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/28/15)

California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Chief Probation Officers of California

Fraternal Order of Police N. California Probation Lodge 19

Kern County Probation Officers Association

Monterey County Probation Association

Probation Peace Officers Association of Contra Costa County

Sacramento County Probation Association

San Francisco Deputy Probation Officers’ Association

San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association

Santa Clara County Probation Peace Officers’ Union

State Coalition of Probation Organizations

Ventura County Professional Peace Officers’ Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: American Civil Liberties Union of California states:

SB 124 seeks to remedy deficiencies in law regarding the use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities. This bill is in keeping with efforts across the country to ban or limit the use of solitary confinement, and to curb its overuse and abuse. . .

SB 124 follows efforts across the county and around the world to curb the use of solitary confinement. States like Alaska and Oklahoma ban the use of juvenile solitary confinement for punitive reasons. New York City recently banned the use of solitary confinement on people under the age of 21.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: California Correctional Peace Officers Association states:

We recognize that many parties believe that solitary confinement was overused in the past within the Department of the Youth Authority and the Division of Juvenile Facilities. However those issues were addressed by the Farrell court and subsequently by DJJ. In our view, the DJJ has adopted a far reaching set of policies governing the isolation of wards. These policies are specifically designed to keep wards safe and, when necessary, place a ward in a treatment program run by staff who are trained in evidence based curriculum to address the ward’s violent or aggressive behavior …

Prepared by: Linda Tenerowicz / PUB. S. /

6/1/15 13:04:08

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 124 (Leno) - Juveniles: solitary confinement

SUSPENSE FILE. AS AMENDED.

Bill Summary:

SB 124 would establish standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities and other secure state or local facilities for the confinement of minors or wards, as specified, and make various changes to the composition and duties of juvenile justice commissions and probation commissions.

Fiscal Impact (as approved May 28, 2015):

• Annual costs to the CDCR Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) of less than $2 million (General Fund) annually for increased staffing, data collection, and training on new regulations. The provisions of this bill would apply to the DJF population of approximately 700 youth.

• Ongoing likely state-reimbursable local costs potentially in the low millions of dollars (General Fund) statewide for over 100 local juvenile facilities with an average daily population of approximately 7,600 youth, to meet the operational and documentation mandates of this bill.

• Minor annual local costs to effectuate the changes to juvenile justice commission membership. Ongoing costs of about $30,000 (General Fund) to the BSCC for revised and extended training provided to juvenile justice commission members.

• Potentially significant annual state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for local juvenile justice commissions to expand the list of annual inspections of jails and lockup facilities to include any facility within the county used for confinement for more than 24 hours of a minor.

Background:

Existing law provides generally that the purpose of the 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. If removal of a minor is determined by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective. If the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents . . . ¶` . . . Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court who are in need of protective services shall receive care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. 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 ... (Welfare and Institutions Code § 202.)

Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to “adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors.” The BSCC is required to “adopt and prescribe the minimum standards of construction, operation, programs of education and training, and qualifications of personnel for juvenile ranches, camps, or forestry camps . . . .” (WIC § 210.)

Existing law provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than seven and no more than 15 citizens, as specified. Current law requires that two or more of the members be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, “provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority.” (WIC § 225.)

Proposed Law:

This bill would enact new statutory provisions regulating the use of “solitary confinement” in state and local juvenile facilities, as follows:

• Defines “solitary confinement” to mean “the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked room or cell alone with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards, correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary confinement does not include confinement of a person in a single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room confinement necessary for required institutional operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes, showering, and unit movements.”

• Defines “juvenile facility” as including a juvenile hall, a juvenile camp or ranch, a facility of the CDCR DJF, a regional youth educational facility, a youth correctional center, and any other local or state facility used for the confinement of minors or wards. Also defines “minor” and “ward,” as specified.

• Provides that solitary confinement shall not be used for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation by staff.

• Provides that a person may be held in solitary confinement if the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or self that is not the result of a mental disorder, or if the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility.

• Provides that “a person confined in any juvenile facility who is a danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, as specified, shall not be subject to solitary confinement and shall be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated mental health treatment facility, as specified.

• Provides that “solitary confinement” be done in accordance with the following guidelines only after all other less-restrictive options to address the risk have been attempted and exhausted:

  • The person may be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to exceed four hours. If it appears during the time a person is held in solitary confinement that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, the juvenile facility shall consult with a qualified mental health professional to determine whether the person suffers from a mental disorder. If the person suffers from a mental disorder that may warrant higher level of care than can be provided at the facility, the juvenile facility shall transport the person to a mental health facility.

  • If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder, the condition of the person shall be monitored closely by custody staff of the juvenile facility.

• Requires each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, including specified information for each case.

• Requires the documentation records to be available without identifying information to public disclosure, as specified.

• Provides that the provisions of the section of the bill are not to apply to minors or wards in court holding facilities or adult facilities.

• Requires that two or more of the members of the county and regional juvenile justice commissions, shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive; two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth; one member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

• Increases the regional juvenile justice commission to no less than ten, instead of eight, members.

• Extends the duties of juvenile justice commissions to probation commissions, as specified.

• Expands requirements for annual inspections from jails and lockups to include any facility within the county that was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person (existing law is restricted to minors).

• Expands duties of the commissions to review records of jails, lockups, and facilities relating to the use of solitary confinement.

• Expands written reporting distribution to include the county board of supervisors and BSCC.

Related Legislation:

SB 970 (Yee) 2014 would have established standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities, as specified, and would have made some changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions. This bill was re-referred to the Senate Rules Committee without further action.

SB 61 (Yee) 2013 was substantially similar to SB 970. This bill was referred to the inactive file on the Assembly Floor.

SB 1363 (Yee) 2012 was substantially similar to SB 970. This bill failed passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

Staff Comments:

The CDCR has indicated estimated costs at a minimum of $2.5 million annually for staffing, data collection, and training to implement the provisions of this bill that would be applied to the DJF population of less than 700 youth. The CDCR has also indicated the DJF could incur potential future costs of an unknown amount in such areas as increased injuries to youth, potential increased lengths of stay, increased injuries to staff/workers compensation claims, increased administrative resources for investigations, disciplinary processes, and report writing, increased litigation, increased use of force incidents, additional referrals to outside mental health hospitals, and extended oversight by the Farrell court and Special Master.

Based on information from the BSCC juvenile detention population survey (2nd quarter, 2014), the average daily population is approximately 7,600 youth in juvenile halls, camps, and other facilities. It is estimated there are about 120 juvenile facilities located in 49 of the 58 counties across the state. To the extent county facilities incur additional workload and costs to meet the standards in the bill, notably the transportation, evaluation, and documentation requirements, costs to these facilities could be substantial, potentially in the millions of dollars statewide. Additionally, imposing these standards and documentation requirements on local facilities could create a state-reimbursable mandate.

It is estimated the costs to effectuate the changes in membership to local juvenile justice commissions would be minor. However, is estimated that local juvenile justice commissions could potentially incur significant ongoing costs, potentially state-reimbursable, to expand the list of annual inspections of jails and lockup facilities to include any facility within the county used for confinement of a person (instead of minor) for more than 24 hours. Additional state-mandated costs to expand its review to records of solitary confinement newly required under the bill’s provisions, as well as increased reporting requirements to the county board of supervisors, could also be incurred.

This bill extends the duties of juvenile justice commissions to local probation commissions. To the extent probation commissions reduce the existing and new workload of juvenile justice commissions would serve to reduce in part the level of state-reimbursable costs to juvenile justice commissions noted above. To the extent the increase in probation commission workload qualifies as a reimbursable state mandate, local probation commissions could submit claims for reimbursement of those costs.

To the extent the establishment of standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement results in more limited use of youth isolation could lead to improved outcomes for youth, including a reduction in the adverse long-term mental health outcomes for youth subjected to such isolation.

Author amendments (as adopted May 28, 2015):

• Narrow the definition of ‘solitary confinement’ to mean the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked sleep room or cell, as specified.

• Remove the requirement for transportation to, and evaluation at, a designated mental health facility of specified persons.

• Prohibit the use of solitary confinement for consecutive periods in excess of four hours.

• Clarify reporting requirements.

• Delete the additional membership of parents of currently incarcerated youth as members of juvenile justice commissions.

• Revert to existing law the juvenile justice commission mandate to inspect facilities that are used for confinement for more than 24 hours of a minor.

• Remove the mandate on local probation commissions.

• Make other technical changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 124 (Leno) - Juveniles: solitary confinement

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 124 would establish standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities and other secure state or local facilities for the confinement of minors or wards, as specified, and make various changes to the composition and duties of juvenile justice commissions and probation commissions.

Fiscal Impact:

• Annual costs to the CDCR Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) estimated at a minimum of $2.5 million (General Fund) annually for increased staffing, data collection, and training on new regulations. The provisions of this bill would apply to the DJF population of approximately 700 youth.

• Ongoing likely state-reimbursable local costs potentially in the millions of dollars (General Fund) statewide for over 100 local juvenile facilities with an average daily population of approximately 7,600 youth, to meet the operational, transportation, evaluation, and documentation mandates of this bill.

• Potentially significant cost pressure to local county mental health staff to respond to increased evaluation requirements at local juvenile facilities.

• Minor annual local costs to effectuate the changes to juvenile justice commission membership. Ongoing costs of about $30,000 (General Fund) to the BSCC for revised and extended training provided to juvenile justice commission members.

• Potentially significant annual state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for local juvenile justice commissions to expand the list of annual inspections of jails and lockup facilities to include any facility within the county used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person (currently restricted to minors).

• Potentially significant annual state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) to extend duties of juvenile justice commissions to local probation commissions. To the extent probation commissions reduce the existing workload of juvenile justice commissions would serve to reduce in part the level of new costs to juvenile justice commissions. Additional costs (General Fund) to expand its review to records of solitary confinement newly required under the bill’s provisions.

Background:

Existing law provides generally that the purpose of the 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. If removal of a minor is determined by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective. If the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents . . . ¶` . . . Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court who are in need of protective services shall receive care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. 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 ... (Welfare and Institutions Code § 202.)

Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to “adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors.” The BSCC is required to “adopt and prescribe the minimum standards of construction, operation, programs of education and training, and qualifications of personnel for juvenile ranches, camps, or forestry camps . . . .” (WIC § 210.)

Existing law provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than seven and no more than 15 citizens, as specified. Current law requires that two or more of the members be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, “provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority.” (WIC § 225.)

Proposed Law:

This bill would enact new statutory provisions regulating the use of “solitary confinement” in state and local juvenile facilities, as follows:

• Defines “solitary confinement” to mean “the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked room or cell alone with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards, correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary confinement does not include confinement of a person in a single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room confinement necessary for required institutional operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes, showering, and unit movements.”

• Defines “juvenile facility” as including a juvenile hall, a juvenile camp or ranch, a facility of the CDCR DJF, a regional youth educational facility, a youth correctional center, and any other local or state facility used for the confinement of minors or wards. Also defines “minor” and “ward,” as specified.

• Provides that solitary confinement shall not be used for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation by staff.

• Provides that a person may be held in solitary confinement if the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or self that is not the result of a mental disorder, or if the person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility.

• Provides that “a person confined in any juvenile facility who is a danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, as specified, shall not be subject to solitary confinement and shall be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated mental health treatment facility, as specified.

• Provides that “solitary confinement” be done in accordance with the following guidelines only after all other less-restrictive options to address the risk have been attempted and exhausted:

  • The person may be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to exceed four hours. If it appears during the time a person is held in solitary confinement that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, the juvenile facility shall consult with a qualified mental health professional to determine whether the person suffers from a mental disorder. If the person suffers from a mental disorder that may warrant higher level of care than can be provided at the facility, the juvenile facility shall transport the person to a mental health facility.

  • If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder, the condition of the person shall be monitored closely by custody staff of the juvenile facility.

• Requires each local and state juvenile facility to document the usage of solitary confinement, including specified information for each case.

• Requires the documentation records to be available without identifying information to public disclosure, as specified.

• Provides that the provisions of the section of the bill are not to apply to minors or wards in court holding facilities or adult facilities.

• Requires that two or more of the members of the county and regional juvenile justice commissions, shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive; two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth; one member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

• Increases the regional juvenile justice commission to no less than ten, instead of eight, members.

• Extends the duties of juvenile justice commissions to probation commissions, as specified.

• Expands requirements for annual inspections from jails and lockups to include any facility within the county that was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any person (existing law is restricted to minors).

• Expands duties of the commissions to review records of jails, lockups, and facilities relating to the use of solitary confinement.

• Expands written reporting distribution to include the county board of supervisors and BSCC.

Related Legislation:

SB 970 (Yee) 2014 would have established standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities, as specified, and would have made some changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions. This bill was re-referred to the Senate Rules Committee without further action.

SB 61 (Yee) 2013 was substantially similar to SB 970. This bill was referred to the inactive file on the Assembly Floor.

SB 1363 (Yee) 2012 was substantially similar to SB 970. This bill failed passage in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

Staff Comments:

The CDCR has indicated estimated costs at a minimum of $2.5 million annually for staffing, data collection, and training to implement the provisions of this bill that would be applied to the DJF population of less than 700 youth. The CDCR has also indicated the DJF could incur potential future costs of an unknown amount in such areas as increased injuries to youth, potential increased lengths of stay, increased injuries to staff/workers compensation claims, increased administrative resources for investigations, disciplinary processes, and report writing, increased litigation, increased use of force incidents, additional referrals to outside mental health hospitals, and extended oversight by the Farrell court and Special Master.

Based on information from the BSCC juvenile detention population survey (2nd quarter, 2014), the average daily population is approximately 7,600 youth in juvenile halls, camps, and other facilities. It is estimated there are about 120 juvenile facilities located in 49 of the 58 counties across the state. To the extent county facilities incur additional workload and costs to meet the standards in the bill, notably the transportation, evaluation, and documentation requirements, costs to these facilities could be substantial, potentially in the millions of dollars statewide. Additionally, imposing these standards and documentation requirements on local facilities could create a state-reimbursable mandate.

It is estimated the costs to effectuate the changes in membership to local juvenile justice commissions would be minor. However, is estimated that local juvenile justice commissions could potentially incur significant ongoing costs, potentially state-reimbursable, to expand the list of annual inspections of jails and lockup facilities to include any facility within the county used for confinement of a person (instead of minor) for more than 24 hours. Additional state-mandated costs to expand its review to records of solitary confinement newly required under the bill’s provisions, as well as increased reporting requirements to the county board of supervisors, could also be incurred.

This bill extends the duties of juvenile justice commissions to local probation commissions. To the extent probation commissions reduce the existing and new workload of juvenile justice commissions would serve to reduce in part the level of state-reimbursable costs to juvenile justice commissions noted above. To the extent the increase in probation commission workload qualifies as a reimbursable state mandate, local probation commissions could submit claims for reimbursement of those costs.

To the extent the establishment of standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement results in more limited use of youth isolation could lead to improved outcomes for youth, including a reduction in the adverse long-term mental health outcomes for youth subjected to such isolation.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 124 Hearing Date: April 7, 2015

Subject: Juveniles: solitary confinement

HISTORY

Source: Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Prior Legislation: SB 1363 (Yee) (2012) – failed passage, Senate Public Safety

SB 61 (Yee) (2013) – died in the Assembly

SB 970 (Yee) (2014) – died in the Senate

Support: Youth Law Center; Legal Services for Children; American Civil Liberties Union; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Peace Over Violence; GSA Network; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Violence Prevention Coalition; Children Now; Fair Chance Project; Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings; Nollie Jenkins Family Center; Wilks Law; Los Angeles Community Action Network; American Friends Service Committee; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Children’s Defense Fund; Forward Together; The W. Haywood Burns Institute; National Center for Youth Law; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project; Urban Peace Movement; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Children’s Law Center of California; Resurrection Catholic Community; Riverside Temple Beth El; Bend the Arc for Justice; Human Rights Watch; California Civil Liberties Council; Alameda County Board of Supervisors; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; Manifest Works; Conference of California Bar Associations; Coalition for Engaged Education; Aptos Temple Beth El; Fair Chance Project; Starting Over Inc.; Public Counsel; California Council of Churches IMPACT; California Public Defenders Association; Policy Link; Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; Drug Policy Alliance; National Association of Black Social Workers; Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club; The Association of Black Psychologists; California Catholic Conference, Inc.; Rosie the Riveter High School Youth Build; Every Child Foundation; California Immigrant Policy Center; California Families Against Solitary Confinement; Justice Not Jails; Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice; Mental Research Institute; Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts; several individuals

Opposition: California Correctional Peace Officers Association; State Coalition of Probation Organizations; Chief Probation Officers of California

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to 1) establish standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as specified; and 2) make changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions, as specified.

Existing law provides generally that the purpose of the 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. If removal of a minor is determined by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective. If the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents . . . ¶` . . . Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court who are in need of protective services shall receive care, treatment, and guidance consistent with their best interest and the best interest of the public. 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 . . . (Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) § 202.)

Existing law provides that minors under the age of 18 years may be adjudged to be a ward of the court for violating “any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime,” as specified. (WIC § 602.)

Existing law generally provides that when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground

that he or she is delinquent, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the care,

supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the minor, including medical treatment, subject to further order of the court, as specified. (WIC § 727(a).)

Existing law authorizes the court to place a ward of the court in a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, secure juvenile home, or the Division of Juvenile Facilities, as specified. (WIC§ 726.)

Confinement of Detained Minors

Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections (“BSCC”) to “adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors.” (WIC § 210.)

Existing law requires the BSCC to “adopt and prescribe the minimum standards of construction, operation, programs of education and training, and qualifications of personnel for juvenile ranches, camps, or forestry camps . . .” (WIC § 885.)

This bill would enact new statutory provisions regulating the use of “solitary confinement” in juvenile facilities with the following features and requirements:

Definition and Scope

This bill would define “solitary confinement” to mean “the placement of an incarcerated person in a locked room or cell alone with minimal or no contact with persons other than guards, correctional facility staff, and attorneys. Solitary confinement does not include confinement of a person in a single-person room or cell for brief periods of locked-room confinement necessary for required institutional operations, including, but not limited to, shift changes, showering, and unit movements.”

This bill would define “juvenile facility” as including any of the following:

1. A juvenile hall, as described in Section 850;

2. A juvenile camp or ranch;

3. A facility of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities;

4. A regional youth educational facility, as specified;

5. A youth correctional center, as specified; and

6. Any other local or state facility used for the confinement of minors or wards.

This bill would define “minor” to mean a person who is any of the following:

1. A person under 18 years of age;

2. A person under the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction who is confined in a juvenile facility; or

3. A person under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities.

This bill would define “ward” to mean a person who has been declared a delinquent ward of the court, as specified.

Limits on Solitary Confinement

This bill would provide that “solitary confinement shall not be used for the purposes of discipline, punishment, coercion, convenience, or retaliation by staff.”

Standards for Solitary Confinement Placement and Duration

This bill would provide that a person may be held in solitary confinement if:

1. The person poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to the security of the facility;

2. Poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others that is not the result of a mental disorder; or

3. The person poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not the result of a mental disorder.

This bill would provide that “a person confined in any juvenile facility who is a danger to himself, herself, or others as a result of a mental disorder, or who is gravely disabled, as specified, shall not be subject to solitary confinement and shall be transported to, and evaluated at, a designated mental health treatment facility, as specified.

This bill would provide that a person may only be held in solitary confinement if all other less-restrictive options to address the risk have been attempted and exhausted.

Standards During Solitary Confinement

This bill would provide that “solitary confinement” be done in accordance with the following guidelines:

(1) The person may be held in solitary confinement only for the minimum time required to address the risk, and for a period of time that does not compromise the mental and physical health of the minor or ward, but not to exceed four hours. After the person is held in solitary confinement, the person shall be returned to regular programming or placed in individualized programming that does not involve solitary confinement. If it appears during the time a person is held in solitary confinement that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, and consultation with a qualified mental health professional determines that it is appropriate, the person shall be transported to a mental health facility.

(2) If a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder, the condition of the person shall be monitored closely by a qualified mental health professional. If a qualified mental health professional determines that the person cannot be safely released from solitary confinement, the person shall be transported to a mental health facility or hospital for the development and implementation of an individualized suicide crisis intervention plan.

(3) The use of consecutive periods of solitary confinement shall be prohibited.

Documentation

This bill would require that each local and state juvenile facility shall document the usage of solitary confinement, including all of the following:

(1) The name of the person subject to solitary confinement;

(2) The date and time the person was placed in solitary confinement;

(3) The date and time the person was released from solitary confinement;

(4) The name and position of person authorizing the placement of the person in solitary

confinement;

(5) The names of staff involved in the incident leading to the use of solitary confinement;

(6) A description of circumstances leading to use of solitary confinement;

(7) A description of alternative actions and sanctions attempted and found unsuccessful;

and,

(8) The dates and times when staff checked in on the person when he or she was in

solitary confinement and the person’s behavior during the check.

This bill would subject these records without identifying information to public disclosure as specified.

Miscellaneous

This bill would provide that its provisions are not intended to limit the use of single-person rooms or cells for the housing of persons in juvenile facilities.

This bill would provide that its provisions are not to apply to minors or wards in court holding facilities or adult facilities.

This bill would provide that its provisions not be construed to conflict with any law providing greater or additional protections to minors or wards.

Local and Regional Juvenile Justice Commissions

Existing law provides that in each county there shall be a juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than 7 and no more than 15 citizens. Current law requires that two or more of the members be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, “provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority”. (WIC § 225)

This bill would require that two or more of the members shall be persons who are 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive; two or more of the members to be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth; one member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law provides that in lieu of county juvenile justice commissions, the board of supervisors of two or more adjacent counties may agree to establish a regional juvenile justice commission consisting of not less than eight citizens.

This bill would require the regional juvenile justice commission to consist of no less than ten members.

Existing law provides that two or more of the members shall be persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority.

This bill would require two or more of the members to be 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. Two or more of the members shall be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth. One member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker, with expertise in adolescent development.

Existing law provides that it shall be the duty of a juvenile justice commission to inquire into the administration of the juvenile court law in the county or region in which the commission serves.

Existing law provides that a juvenile justice commission shall annually inspect any jail or lockup within the county which in the preceding calendar year was used for confinement for more than 24 hours of any minor.

This bill would revise this section to expressly include a “facility” within its scope.

This bill would revise this section to include a probation commission as defined in WIC Section 240 to inquire into the administration of the juvenile court law in the county or region in which the commission serves.

Existing law provides that a “juvenile justice commission may recommend to any person charged with the administration of any of the provisions of this chapter such changes as it has concluded, after investigation, will be beneficial. A commission may publicize its recommendations.”

This bill would revise this provision to authorize a juvenile justice commission or probation commission to publicize its recommendations on the county government’s Internet Web site or other publicly accessible medium.

Existing law provides that counties having a population in excess of 6,000,000 in lieu of a county juvenile justice commission, there shall be a probation commission consisting of no less than seven members who shall be appointed by the same authority as that authorized to appoint the probation officer in that county.

This bill would revise this provision so that two or more of the members shall be 14 to 21 years of age, inclusive. Two or more of the members shall be parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated youth. One member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker with expertise in adolescent development.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 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.

In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison

population;

• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which

there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety

of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and

• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved

through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s Amendments

The author intends to amend this bill in Committee as follows:

• Revise the bill’s provisions to require that if it appears during the time a person is held in solitary confinement that the person is suffering from a mental disorder, the juvenile facility shall consult with a qualified mental health professional to determine whether the person suffers from a mental disorder. If the person suffers from a mental disorder that may warrant a higher level of care than can be provided at the juvenile facility and the person continues to pose a risk of harm, the juvenile facility shall transport the person to a mental health facility.

• Revise the bill’s provisions to require that if a person in solitary confinement poses a risk of harm to himself or herself that is not a result of a mental disorder, the condition of the person shall be monitored by custody staff instead of a qualified mental health professional.

• Revise the bill’s provisions to add age, race, and gender to the criteria for documentation on

the use of solitary confinement.

2. Stated Need for This Bill

The author states:

Solitary confinement is an extremely harmful measure, widely condemned as torture, but overused in California state and local juvenile justice systems. Without even a legal definition of solitary confinement, local governments have no standard to prevent abuse, related injuries or deaths, or to avoid costly lawsuits.

In 2011, the United Nations called on all countries to ban solitary confinement of prisoners except in exceptional circumstances and for brief periods, with an absolute prohibition in the case of juveniles and people with mental disabilities. In 2013, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights convened the first hearing on the use of solitary confinement in the United States.

Despite a long standing consent decree, abuses in California youth prisons continue. A 2011 audit found that youth were often isolated in their cells for 23 hours a day or more. During a 15-week period, there were 249 separate recorded incidents of solitary confinement at five different facilities. In one case, a youth reported receiving only one hour out of his cell in a 10-day period. In a recent 2014 report released by Barry Krisberg of the Warren Institute at UC Berkeley School of Law, youth in the most restrictive program known as “Behavior Treatment Program” were typically there for 60 days. A federal lawsuit has been filed against Contra Costa County’s juvenile hall for youth placed in solitary for 23 hours a day in a 12 by 12 foot cell and denied education as punishment.

Solitary confinement endangers mental health and increases risk for suicide. Nationally, over half of the youth who committed suicide in a correctional facility were in solitary confinement at the time. Sixty-two percent had a history of being placed in solitary confinement.

Six states ban solitary confinement for “punitive reasons” and New York City has banned solitary confinement for people under 21. The federal bipartisan “Redeem Act” was introduced in the 2014 congressional session to curb the use of solitary confinement for youth.

3. What This Bill Would Do

As explained in detail above, this bill generally addresses two areas in the juvenile law: first, it establishes standards and protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local juvenile facilities for the confinement of minors who have been detained or committed as juvenile offenders, as specified; and second, it makes some changes to the composition and duties of local juvenile justice commissions.

4. Isolating Juvenile Offenders

As noted by the author and supporters of this measure, solitary confinement for juveniles in detention facilities raises very serious issues. In 2005, comments on proposed revised regulations limiting the length of time a juvenile may be placed in isolation in New Jersey explained:

It is worth noting at the outset that the American Correctional Association (ACA), which establishes professional standards for adult correctional and juvenile justice facilities, limits isolation of juveniles to a maximum of 5 days. The ACA is a leading national association and its standard amply supports the proposed regulations . . . It is also noteworthy that international law prohibits the use of isolation as a disciplinary tool, holding that “all disciplinary measures constituting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment shall be strictly prohibited, including corporal punishment, placement in a dark cell, closed or solitary confinement or any other punishment that may compromise the physical or mental health of the juvenile concerned.

As reflected in social science literature and testimony, there is ample basis for severely limiting the use of isolation with juveniles. Simply put, isolation is not an evidence-based practiced. In fact, the evidence shows that isolation causes harm to juveniles and increases the risk of suicide.

A 2001 survey of the literature concluded that “the research has found seclusion to be harmful to patients and not related to positive patient outcomes . . . There is no research to support a theoretical foundation for the use of seclusion with children. Evidence has been building for more than 30 years that the practice of seclusion does not add to therapeutic goals and is in fact a method to control the environment instead of a therapeutic intervention.” Reinforcing this point, a leading official from the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice has stated that “[t]he use of extended isolation as a method of behavior control, for example, is an import from the adult system that has proven both harmful and counterproductive when applied to juveniles. It too often leads to increased incidents of depression and self-mutilation among isolated juveniles, while also exacerbating their behavior problems. We know that the use of prolonged isolation leads to increased not decreased, acting out, particularly among juveniles with mental illness.

The most dramatic potential consequence of isolation is the increased risk of suicide. In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the United States Justice Department commissioned “the first comprehensive effort to determine the scope and distribution of suicides by youth in our public and private juvenile facilities throughout the country.” The study found that 50 percent of victims were in isolation at the time of their suicide, and 62 percent of victims had a history of isolation.¹

In October of last year, the American Civil Rights Union and Human Rights Watch issued a report describing the incidence and effects of solitary confinement concerning young people. That report included the following information:

Experts assert that young people are psychologically unable to handle solitary confinement with the resilience of an adult. And, because they are still developing, traumatic experiences like solitary confinement may have a profound effect on their chance to rehabilitate and grow. Solitary confinement can exacerbate, or make more likely, short and long-term mental health problems. The most common deprivation that accompanies solitary confinement, denial of physical exercise, is physically harmful to adolescents’ health and well-being.

Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union estimate that in 2011, more than 95,000 youth were held in prisons and jails. A significant number of these facilities use solitary confinement—for days, weeks, months, or even years—to punish, protect, house, or treat some of the young people who are held there. Solitary confinement of youth is, today, a serious and widespread problem in the United States.

This situation is a relatively recent development. It has only been in the last 30 years that a majority of jurisdictions around the country have adopted various charging and sentencing laws and practices that have resulted in substantial numbers of adolescents serving time in adult jails and prisons. These laws and policies have largely ignored the need to treat young people charged and sentenced as if adults with special consideration for their age, development, and rehabilitative potential.²

5. Current Laws and Regulations — Local Facilities

As noted above, current statute requires the BSCC to promulgate regulations establishing minimum standards in juvenile halls. Current regulations pertaining to the segregation of confined minors provide:

The facility administrator shall develop written policies and procedures concerning the need to segregate minors. Minors who are segregated shall not be denied normal privileges available at the facility, except when necessary to accomplish the objectives of segregation. Written procedures shall be developed which provide a review of all minors to determine whether it is appropriate for them to remain in segregation and for direct visual observation. When segregation is for the purpose of discipline, Title 15, Section 1390 shall apply.³

Current regulations further provide:

The facility administrator shall develop written policies and procedures for the discipline of minors that shall promote acceptable behavior. Discipline shall be imposed at the least restrictive level which promotes the desired behavior. Discipline shall not include corporal punishment, group punishment, physical or psychological degradation or deprivation of the following:

(a) bed and bedding;

(b) daily shower, access to drinking fountain, toilet and personal hygiene items, and clean clothing;

(c) full nutrition;

(d) contact with parent or attorney;

(e) exercise;

(f) medical services and counseling;

(g) religious services;

(h) clean and sanitary living conditions;

(i) the right to send and receive mail; and,

(j) education.

The facility administrator shall establish rules of conduct and disciplinary penalties to guide the conduct of minors. Such rules and penalties shall include both major violations and minor violations, be stated simply and affirmatively, and be made available to all minors. Provision shall be made to provide the information to minors who are impaired, illiterate or do not speak English.⁴

Thus, current law generally requires local juvenile detention administrators to develop written policies and procedures for segregating detained youth, including providing for a review to determine whether it is appropriate for them to remain in segregation and subject to direct visual observation. Segregated youth cannot be denied normal privileges “except when necessary to accomplish the objectives of segregation.” Similarly, current law requires administrators of local juvenile facilities to develop written policies and procedures for discipline. As described above, the regulations prohibit corporal punishment, group punishment, physical or psychological degradation, or deprivation of specified basic provisions.

6. Division of Juvenile Facilities

The provisions of this bill would apply to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (“DJF”). Historically, the use of solitary confinement in DJJ has posed significant issues and concerns. Fifteen years ago, this Committee investigated a number of issues relating to conditions at what was then the California Youth Authority (“CYA”). On May 16, 2000, this Committee conducted a joint informational hearing with the Assembly Public Safety Committee regarding conditions at CYA. A former CYA ward testified about his experience on “lock-down” at CYA in the early-to-mid 1990s:

I spent ten months on the Taft lock-down unit for assaultive wards. I was considered a threat to regular staff. For the first month-and-a-half that I was there, I came out of my room for one hour a day. As soon as the shift came on, which is about 6 o’clock in the morning, I would have my handcuffs removed out of my room to shower. My shower would count as part of my hour, as part of my large muscle exercise. I would sometimes have to eat in my handcuffs in front of the TV. That would be part of my large muscle exercise. That would be it. For a month-and-a-half I did that.⁵

That hearing also included the following testimony from Sue Burrell, staff attorney for the Youth Law Center:

California is completely off the charts in its use of lockdown for kids . . . Youth Authority is one of only 4 percent of state training schools that has no limit on the period in which kids are held in isolation.

I have had letters from kids who were, for example, in Sacramento Hall at Chaderjian for ten months. It is not unusual to find kids that are in for five or six months, and many of these kids are in for reasons, such as we heard this morning, where maybe they’re a Sureño and they’re in the north or vice-versa. They wind up essentially in protective custody, locked down 23 hours a day. They get the wonderful educational services which are basically a sham, to have a teacher come to the crack in your door for ten minutes a day. You get out of your cell for maybe an hour in which time you are required to do your showering and your recreational exercise. And at Chaderjian, that happens outside in a cage. And other kids are not there in protective custody but they’re there because they’ve messed up in other programs. Some of the kids are in what are called ‘recalcitrant programs’ but it’s kind of like the Emperor’s New Clothes because there is no program. You are basically just locked down.⁶

As part of comprehensive litigation involving conditions at DJF which commenced in 2003 – Farrell v. Cate – DJF is required to adopt reformed methods for dealing with containment or isolation of wards. (See Consent Decree, Farrell v. Allen (Nov. 19, 2004) (http://www.prisonlaw .com /pdfs/farrellcd2.pdf.); Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan: Implementing Reform in California (July 10, 2006) http://www. prisonlaw.com/pdfs/SafetyPlanFinal.pdf.) In her most recent (and 30^th) report in the Farrell case in November of 2014, Special Master Nancy Campbell wrote in part:

There have been significant reductions in the reliance on solitary confinement in DJJ since 2005. The older and discredited policy and practice of confining youth in a lockup unit for 23 hours a day with minimal services is gone. In its place, the DJJ has developed a range of options that constitute a short term limitation on the program of youth who are in some kind of crisis and who may be a danger to themselves or others. These alternatives include a very short term “cool down period in the youngster’s room (or in a separate room) in those few remaining dormitory units. Another option for staff is to utilize “room confinement” in which the youth stays in their own room, usually for less than a day. Youth needing more specialized attention are managed in the Treatment Intervention Program (TIP) that is designed to last only a few days.

Data on TIP for June 2014 revealed that more than half of the youngsters assigned to this program were returned to regular programs within one day and only 18% were in TIP for more than 3 days. Most important, the TIP program includes educational services, mental health services and is designed to return youth back to their regular programs as soon as possible. The goal of TIP is not punishment, but closely monitored separation for a very short duration to assist the youth to return to a more appropriate program placement and treatment services. These limited program options permitted DJJ to eliminate Temporary Detention that had been a regular feature of past DJJ practice. Further, these programs rely on delivery of counseling and mental health interventions, not depravation of basic services. Youth in TIP generally spend a large number of waking hours out of their rooms and engaged in education, recreation and other positive activities. This approach is consistent with the best professional thinking and the growing literature on the harm to adolescents of extreme isolation.

The most restrictive level of limited programming is the Behavioral Treatment Program (BTP). These youth have engaged in repeated and very serious disciplinary infractions. The BTP program had 65 youngsters assigned to it in June 2014. The 22 youth in the OHCYCF BTP stayed an average of 37 days. At NACYCF there were 15 residents of the BTP, who stayed an average of 106 days and at the VYCF there were 28 youth who stayed an average of 106 days. These average lengths of stay figures are greatly affected by a very small number of young people who might remain in the BTP for a very long period. More typical BTP assignments are for less than two months.

Before the Farrell reforms took hold, the DJJ lockup units had as many as 400 youth on any given day and the length of stay was at least 270 days. In the “bad old days” the lockup units included a wide range of youth who had engaged in serious assaults, had defied staff orders, evidenced severe mental health issues, or were in the lockup unit in protective custody. The BTP is now almost reserved exclusively for very assaultive young people and the DJJ uses its other programming options for other young people in the BTPs markedly improved.

DJJ introduced more services, counseling and groups in the BTP units that focused on cognitive behavioral skills, anger management and preparation for community reentry. Staff assigned to the BTPs have embraced its new philosophy of increasing mental health services, improving youth communication and conflict resolution skills, and providing opportunities for vocational and educational achievements.

Opposition

Opponents generally argue solitary confinement of juvenile offenders already has been adequately addressed in California. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, states for example:

We recognize that many parties believe that solitary confinement was overused in the past within the Department of the Youth Authority and the Division of Juvenile Facilities. However those issues were addressed by the Farrell court and subsequently by DJJ. In our view, the DJJ has adopted a far reaching set of policies governing the isolation of wards. These policies are specifically designed to keep wards safe and, when necessary, place a ward in a treatment program run by staff who are trained in evidence based curriculum to address the ward’s violent or aggressive behavior … While in many respects the apparent goals of SB 124 are similar to the goals of the new policies, SB 124 would complicate the operational aspects of these policies and treatment programs. In addition, the four hour minimums contained in the SB 124 would jeopardize the safety and security of wards that are conforming to expected standards of behavior, of staff, and would compromise the programming of the general ward population.

Similarly, The State Coalition of Probation Organizations submits:

Given the on-going regulation of juvenile separation, and the need to ensure the safety of all youth and staff, we believe that (SB 124) will present obstacles to the effective and limited use of separation and programming restrictions. These restrictions will potentially compromise the health and safety of youth and staff alike in juvenile facilities.

Members may wish to discuss the effect of Farrell on the use of solitary confinement in DJJ facilities, and whether Farrell reforms have adequately addressed this issue. Similarly, members may wish to discuss whether existing local juvenile facility regulations adequately regulate the use and conditions of solitary confinement in local juvenile facilities.

Local Juvenile Justice Commissions

As explained above, this bill would change the composition of local juvenile justice commissions to include family members and certain mental health professionals, as specified. The current statutes only specify the inclusion of certain young people, “provided there are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner satisfactory to the appointing authority.”

-- END –