CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 465

Author:(Eggman)

As Amended Ver:August 19, 2020

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Provide that if mental health professionals participate in a program assisting law enforcement in serving the community, or respond to calls for service instead of law enforcement, that those mental health professionals are supervised by licensed mental health professionals.

The Senate Amendments

Delete the previous version of this bill and instead:

1. Provide that in any program or pilot program in which mental health professionals respond in collaboration with law enforcement personnel, or in place of law enforcement, to emergency calls related to a mental health crises shall ensure that mental health professionals participating in the program are supervised by a licensed mental health professional.
2. Define a "licensed mental health professional" as any one of the following:
   1. A licensed clinical social worker;
   2. A licensed professional clinical counselor;
   3. A licensed marriage and family therapist, and,
   4. A licensed psychologist.

COMMENTS:

There has been general discussion in the Legislature and across the country that law enforcement officials are not the ideal first responders to scenes of a mental health crisis. This bill facilitates replacing and supplementing law enforcement officers with mental health workers by ensuring responders are properly supervised by licensed professionals.

According to the Author:

"It is common knowledge that 911 is the number you call in case of emergency. While you should get an ambulance for a medical emergency and a fire crew for a fire, it is less clear who responds to a mental health crisis – though it is often the police. Despite some good work related to Crisis Intervention Training, there has been a call to increase the response of mental health workers to these types of calls.

"In Eugene, Oregon, a program called Cahoots (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Street) is a nonprofit that responds to non-criminal calls around homelessness, substance use, and mental health. They are tied directly into the 911 system and can respond to calls without police. It’s reported that in 2017, Cahoots handled 17-percent of police calls. This additional help is seen as a benefit, not only to the community, but to the officers who now have more time and attention for other issues.

"The City of Oakland is pursuing their own version of this model for a pilot program in the fall of 2020 based on that simple principle of having mental health workers respond to mental health issues.

"Nonprofits in other cities, including Sacramento, are looking to act as an alternative to police in dealing with these calls. The current police approach in the City is to first send an officer out to assess the situation and then determine whether to seek a community support team.

"Cities and counties around the state are surely looking into how to better respond to mental health calls for assistance, and they will be looking to Cahoots in Eugene, the Co-Responder program in Colorado, the Rapid Integrated Group Healthcare Team in Dallas, and many more that are trying to dispatch mental health professionals to mental health crises.

"These programs are all recognizing that police officers are not trained to be mental health professionals. As they expand, and local governments experiment, it will be important that those responding are properly supervised by licensed clinicians."

Arguments in Support:

According to the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, "After several high profile deaths, including George Floyd, communities across the nation have been re-evaluating the role of police and if police are the best responders for calls relating to mental health. Many communities are considering the expansion of programs to utilize mental health workers as first responders in these situations or to implement new programs. Some programs send out a mental health responder with police officers and others send them out in place of law enforcement.

"One notable program in Eugene, Oregon is the Cahoots program which stands for Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Street. This very successful non profit responds to non-criminal calls relating to homelessness, substance use, and mental health. This program, which is tied to the 911 system, helps the community and in 2017, handled 17 percent of police calls which allows the police to focus on issues where their services are needed.

"By requiring supervision by a licensed clinician, this bill will ensure that mental health workers are appropriately responding to calls and giving the best service possible to the individual and to the community."

Arguments in Opposition:

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS:

Unknown

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Mark Stone, Gallagher, Chau, Chiu, Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Kiley, Maienschein, Obernolte, Petrie-Norris, Reyes

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 8-0-0

YES: Reyes, Mathis, Berman, Choi, Friedman, Gipson, Maienschein, Mark Stone

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-4

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Obernolte, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Chen, Eduardo Garcia, Gray

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Lena Gonzalez, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Melendez, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 19, 2020

CONSULTANT: Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003428

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/19/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/31/20 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Morrell, Wiener

SUBJECT: Mental health workers: supervision

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires that specified mental health professionals that respond in collaboration with law enforcement, or in the place of law enforcement, are supervised by licensed mental health professionals.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/20 (1) clarify that the program is supervised by a licensed mental health professional; (2) specify that the supervising licensed mental health professional is not prohibited from responding to calls and providing care; (3) clarify that the supervision shall be consistent with existing county behavioral health agency standards where appropriate; and (4) include specified licensed physicians and specified licensed nurses in the definition of “licensed mental health professional.”

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013 (MHWA), which has the following objectives: (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5).
   1. Expand access to early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
   2. Expand the continuum of services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness, resiliency, and recovery oriented.
   3. Add at least 25 mobile crisis support teams and at least 2,000 crisis stabilization and crisis residential treatment beds to bolster capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
   4. Add at least 600 triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, and clinics.
   5. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services and improving access to timely assistance.
   6. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
   7. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for individuals with mental health disorders.
   8. Provide a complete continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state. The funds included in the 2016 Budget Act for the purpose of developing the continuum of mental health crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under shall be for the following objectives:
      1. Provide a continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state.
      2. Provide for early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
      3. Expand the continuum of community-based services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness-, resiliency-, and recovery-oriented.
      4. Add at least 200 mobile crisis support teams.
      5. Add at least 120 crisis stabilization services and beds and crisis residential treatment beds to increase capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
      6. Add triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, schools, and clinics.
      7. Expand family respite care to help families and sustain caregiver health and well-being.
      8. Expand family supportive training and related services designed to help families participate in the planning process, access services, and navigate programs.
      9. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services.
      10. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
      11. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for children and youth 21 years of age and under with mental health disorders.
2. Authorizes funds granted from the Legislature for the MHWA shall be made available to selected counties. Those awards consider linkage between law enforcement, mental health care, social services, and related assistance as applicable. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5, subd. (d)(2).)

This bill:

1. Specifies that any program or pilot program in which mental health professionals respond in collaboration with law enforcement personnel, or in a place of law enforcement personnel, to emergency calls related to mental health crises shall endure that mental health professionals participating in the program are supervised by a licensed mental health professional.
2. Defines “licensed mental health professional” as the following:
   1. A licensed clinical social worker.
   2. A licensed professional clinical counselor.
   3. A licensed marriage and family therapist.
   4. A licensed psychologist.
   5. Specified physicians and nurses.

Background

The 2013 Budget made various findings and declarations regarding the need for a renewed investment in community-based mental health treatment options. The bill established the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013.

The bill authorized the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) to administer a competitive selection process for capital capacity and program expansion to increase capacity for mobile crisis support, crisis intervention, crisis stabilization services, crisis residential treatment, and specified personnel resources. These funds were made available to selected counties, or counties acting jointly. CHFFA was also authorized to give consideration to private nonprofit corporations and public agencies in an area or region of the state if a county, or counties acting jointly, affirmatively supports this designation and collaboration in lieu of county government directly receiving the funds.

The bill required CHFFA to develop a process to award these grants after consulting with representatives and interested stakeholders from the mental health community. CHFFA ensured that grants result in a cost-effective expansion of the number of community-based crisis resources in regions and communities selected for funding.

The 2013-14 Budget provided a one-time $142 million from the General Fund for these purposes.

The bill implemented a process by which the mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission allocates funding based upon requests for application of need and description of deployment of triage personnel to assist individuals in gaining access to needed services, including medical, mental health, substance use disorder assistance and other community services. The bill required these funds to be made available to selected counties, counties acting jointly, or city mental health departments, as determined by the Commission through a selection process.

The 2013-14 Budget provided $54 million ($32 million MHSA State Administrative Funds and $22 federal funds) for this purpose. This funding was ongoing.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/20/20)

Contra Costa County

National Association of Social Workers – California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/20)

None received

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: According to Contra Costa County:

Our county is committed to increasing safety and wellbeing for all our citizens and realizes that the presence of a firearm during domestic violence incidents increases the risk of homicide by 500%. It is of the utmost importance to provide an effective preventive method in cases of domestic violence. Relinquishment of firearms from subjects of restraining orders, when applied appropriately and at the earliest possible moment, promises to serve as an effective method of preventing future violence.

As you know, the current state of domestic violence restraining orders has some gaps in how they are applied throughout the 58 counties in California. This bill would strengthen the Rules of Court and help bring parity to the application of firearm relinquishment in domestic violence restraining orders in both civil and criminal courts. It is not clear why civil courts have the option to follow the procedures for firearm relinquishment in Rule 4.700, and we believe that this bill would improve the application of domestic violence restraining order.

Prepared by: Gabe Caswell / PUB. S. /

8/21/20 18:18:27

**** END ****

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D), et al.

Amended: 6/30/20 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/31/20 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Morrell, Wiener

SUBJECT: Mental health workers: supervision

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires that specified mental health professionals that respond in collaboration with law enforcement, or in the place of law enforcement, are supervised by licensed mental health professionals.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013 (MHWA), which has the following objectives: (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5).
   1. Expand access to early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
   2. Expand the continuum of services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness, resiliency, and recovery oriented.
   3. Add at least 25 mobile crisis support teams and at least 2,000 crisis stabilization and crisis residential treatment beds to bolster capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
   4. Add at least 600 triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, and clinics.
   5. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services and improving access to timely assistance.
   6. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
   7. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for individuals with mental health disorders.
   8. Provide a complete continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state. The funds included in the 2016 Budget Act for the purpose of developing the continuum of mental health crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under shall be for the following objectives:
      1. Provide a continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state.
      2. Provide for early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
      3. Expand the continuum of community-based services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness-, resiliency-, and recovery-oriented.
      4. Add at least 200 mobile crisis support teams.
      5. Add at least 120 crisis stabilization services and beds and crisis residential treatment beds to increase capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
      6. Add triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, schools, and clinics.
      7. Expand family respite care to help families and sustain caregiver health and well-being.
      8. Expand family supportive training and related services designed to help families participate in the planning process, access services, and navigate programs.
      9. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services.
      10. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
      11. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for children and youth 21 years of age and under with mental health disorders.
2. Authorizes funds granted from the Legislature for the MHWA shall be made available to selected counties. Those awards consider linkage between law enforcement, mental health care, social services, and related assistance as applicable. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5, subd. (d)(2).)

This bill:

1. Specifies that any program or pilot program in which mental health professionals respond in collaboration with law enforcement personnel, or in a place of law enforcement personnel, to emergency calls related to mental health crises shall endure that mental health professionals participating in the program are supervised by a licensed mental health professional.
2. Defines “licensed mental health professional” as the following:
   1. A licensed clinical social worker.
   2. A licensed professional clinical counselor.
   3. A licensed marriage and family therapist.
   4. A licensed psychologist.

Background

The 2013 Budget made various findings and declarations regarding the need for a renewed investment in community-based mental health treatment options. The bill established the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013.

The bill authorized the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) to administer a competitive selection process for capital capacity and program expansion to increase capacity for mobile crisis support, crisis intervention, crisis stabilization services, crisis residential treatment, and specified personnel resources. These funds were made available to selected counties, or counties acting jointly. CHFFA was also authorized to give consideration to private nonprofit corporations and public agencies in an area or region of the state if a county, or counties acting jointly, affirmatively supports this designation and collaboration in lieu of county government directly receiving the funds.

The bill required CHFFA to develop a process to award these grants after consulting with representatives and interested stakeholders from the mental health community. CHFFA ensured that grants result in a cost-effective expansion of the number of community-based crisis resources in regions and communities selected for funding.

The 2013-14 Budget provided a one-time $142 million from the General Fund for these purposes.

The bill implemented a process by which the mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission allocates funding based upon requests for application of need and description of deployment of triage personnel to assist individuals in gaining access to needed services, including medical, mental health, substance use disorder assistance and other community services. The bill required these funds to be made available to selected counties, counties acting jointly, or city mental health departments, as determined by the Commission through a selection process.

The 2013-14 Budget provided $54 million ($32 million MHSA State Administrative Funds and $22 federal funds) for this purpose. This funding was ongoing.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/31/20)

Contra Costa County

National Association of Social Workers – California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/31/20)

None received

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT: According to Contra Costa County:

Our county is committed to increasing safety and wellbeing for all our citizens and realizes that the presence of a firearm during domestic violence incidents increases the risk of homicide by 500%. It is of the utmost importance to provide an effective preventive method in cases of domestic violence. Relinquishment of firearms from subjects of restraining orders, when applied appropriately and at the earliest possible moment, promises to serve as an effective method of preventing future violence.

As you know, the current state of domestic violence restraining orders has some gaps in how they are applied throughout the 58 counties in California. This bill would strengthen the Rules of Court and help bring parity to the application of firearm relinquishment in domestic violence restraining orders in both civil and criminal courts. It is not clear why civil courts have the option to follow the procedures for firearm relinquishment in Rule 4.700, and we believe that this bill would improve the application of domestic violence restraining order.

Prepared by: Gabe Caswell / PUB. S. /

8/19/20 14:08:22

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 465 Hearing Date: July 31, 2020

Subject: Mental Health Workers: Supervision

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 1128 (Steinberg), 2013, held in Senate Rules

Support: Unknown

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: Not relevant

PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to require that specified mental health professionals that respond in collaboration with law enforcement, or in the place of law enforcement, are supervised by licensed mental health professionals.

Existing law establishes the Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013 (MHWA), which has the following objectives: (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5).

1. Expand access to early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
2. Expand the continuum of services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness, resiliency, and recovery oriented.
3. Add at least 25 mobile crisis support teams and at least 2,000 crisis stabilization and crisis residential treatment beds to bolster capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
4. Add at least 600 triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, and clinics.
5. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services and improving access to timely assistance.
6. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
7. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for individuals with mental health disorders.
8. Provide a complete continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state.  The funds included in the 2016 Budget Act for the purpose of developing the continuum of mental health crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under shall be for the following objectives:
   1. Provide a continuum of crisis services for children and youth 21 years of age and under regardless of where they live in the state.
   2. Provide for early intervention and treatment services to improve the client experience, achieve recovery and wellness, and reduce costs.
   3. Expand the continuum of community-based services to address crisis intervention, crisis stabilization, and crisis residential treatment needs that are wellness-, resiliency-, and recovery-oriented.
   4. Add at least 200 mobile crisis support teams.
   5. Add at least 120 crisis stabilization services and beds and crisis residential treatment beds to increase capacity at the local level to improve access to mental health crisis services and address unmet mental health care needs.
   6. Add triage personnel to provide intensive case management and linkage to services for individuals with mental health care disorders at various points of access, such as at designated community-based service points, homeless shelters, schools, and clinics.
   7. Expand family respite care to help families and sustain caregiver health and well-being.
   8. Expand family supportive training and related services designed to help families participate in the planning process, access services, and navigate programs.
   9. Reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inpatient days by appropriately utilizing community-based services.
   10. Reduce recidivism and mitigate unnecessary expenditures of local law enforcement.
   11. Provide local communities with increased financial resources to leverage additional public and private funding sources to achieve improved networks of care for children and youth 21 years of age and under with mental health disorders.

Existing law authorizes funds granted from the Legislature for the MHWA shall be made available to selected counties. Those awards consider linkage between law enforcement, mental health care, social services, and related assistance as applicable. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 5848.5, subd. (d)(2).)

This bill specifies that any program or pilot program in which mental health professionals respond in collaboration with law enforcement personnel, or in a place of law enforcement personnel, to emergency calls related to mental health crises shall endure that mental health professionals participating in the program are supervised by a licensed mental health professional.

This bill defines “licensed mental health professional” as the following:

1. A licensed clinical social worker.
2. A licensed professional clinical counselor.
3. A licensed marriage and family therapist.
4. A licensed psychologist.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

It is common knowledge that 911 is the number you call in case of emergency. While you should get an ambulance for a medical emergency and a fire crew for a fire, it is less clear who responds to a mental health crisis – though it is often the police. Despite some good work related to Crisis Intervention Training, there has been a call to increase the response of mental health workers to these types of calls.

In Eugene, Oregon, a program called Cahoots (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Street) is a nonprofit that responds to non-criminal calls around homelessness, substance use, and mental health. They are tied directly into the 911 system and can respond to calls without police. It’s reported that in 2017, Cahoots handled 17-percent of police calls. This additional help is seen as a benefit, not only to the community, but to the officers who now have more time and attention for other issues.

The City of Oakland is pursuing their own version of this model for a pilot program in the fall of 2020 based on that simple principle of having mental health workers respond to mental health issues.

Nonprofits in other cities, including Sacramento, are looking to act as an alternative to police in dealing with these calls. The current police approach in the City is to first send an officer out to assess the situation and then determine whether to seek a community support team.

Cities and counties around the state are surely looking into how to better respond to mental health calls for assistance, and they will be looking to Cahoots in Eugene, the Co-Responder program in Colorado, the Rapid Integrated Group Healthcare Team in Dallas, and many more that are trying to dispatch mental health professionals to mental health crises.

These programs are all recognizing that police officers are not trained to be mental health professionals. As they expand, and local governments experiment, it will be important that those responding are properly supervised by licensed clinicians.

2. Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 3013

The 2013 budget made various findings and declarations regarding the need for a renewed investment in community-based mental health treatment options. The bill established the Investment in Mental Health Wellness Act of 2013.

Expanded Capacity for Grant Programs

The bill authorized the California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) to administer a competitive selection process for capital capacity and program expansion to increase capacity for mobile crisis support, crisis intervention, crisis stabilization services, crisis residential treatment, and specified personnel resources. These funds were made available to selected counties, or counties acting jointly. CHFFA was also authorized to give consideration to private nonprofit corporations and public agencies in an area or region of the state if a county, or counties acting jointly, affirmatively supports this designation and collaboration in lieu of county government directly receiving the funds.

The bill required CHFFA to develop a process to award these grants after consulting with representatives and interested stakeholders from the mental health community. CHFFA ensured that grants result in a cost-effective expansion of the number of community-based crisis resources in regions and communities selected for funding.

The 2013-14 budget provided a one-time $142 million from the General Fund for these purposes.

Triage Personnel

This bill implemented a process by which the mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission (MHSOAC) allocates funding based upon requests for application of need and description of deployment of triage personnel to assist individuals in gaining access to needed services, including medical, mental health, substance use disorder assistance and other community services. The bill required these funds to be made available to selected counties, counties acting jointly, or city mental health departments, as determined by the commission through a selection process.

The 2013-14 budget provided $54 million ($32 million MHSA State Administrative Funds and $22 federal funds) for this purpose. This funding was ongoing.

-- END –

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 465 (Author:Eggman)

Version: August 28, 2019

Hearing Date: September 11, 2019

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: JT

SUBJECT

Firearm relinquishment: persons under protective orders

DIGEST

This bill generally codifies two Rules of Court that respectively govern criminal court and family court processes for determining if a restrained party failed to relinquish a firearm as required by the protective order they are subject to. To align the processes, the bill would expedite and expand certain aspects of the rule governing family courts.

This analysis focuses on the family court provisions in this Committee’s jurisdiction.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Family Code section 6389 makes it a crime for a person subject to a domestic violence protective order to have a firearm while the protective order is in effect. A similar restriction exists for criminal protective orders. To effectuate these provisions, the Judicial Council has adopted Rules of Court to guide family courts and criminal courts when they are presented with information suggesting a restrained party has failed to relinquish their firearm.

This bill seeks to codify those rules and align them substantively by expanding and expediting the rule applicable to family courts. The bill is author-sponsored. It is supported by law enforcement, prosecutors, and organizations that work on behalf of victims of domestic violence. It is opposed by the California Judges Association (CJA) and the Judicial Council. The Senate Public Safety Committee passed the bill by a vote of 6-0.

The bill was recently amended in its entirety. Due to the requirement in California Constitution article IV, section 8(b)(2) that a bill be in print in its final form for at least 72 hours before it is passed, the opportunity to amend the bill, if it is to be enacted this year, has elapsed.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Makes it a crime for a person subject to a protective order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code § 6200 et seq.^[1]) to own, possesses, purchase, or receive a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect (§ 6389(a)). Requires that the restrained party relinquish, store, or sell the firearm. (§ 6389(c).)
2. Defines “protective order,” for purposes of the Domestic Violence Protection Act and 1), above, as a restraining order, whether issued ex parte, after notice and hearing, or in a judgment, that is an order enjoining specified acts of abuse, excluding a person from a dwelling, or enjoining other specified behavior. (§ 6218.)
3. Provides for the issuance of a “temporary restraining order” (TRO) including an order defined under 2), above.
   1. Provides that, with specified exceptions, a TRO may be granted without notice to the respondent if it is alleged that irreparable injury would result to the petitioner before the matter can be heard on notice. (§ 241.)
   2. If the TRO is granted without notice, requires a hearing to be held on the petition within 21 days of the date the TRO is granted, or 25 days if the court finds good cause. (§ 242(a).)
   3. If the hearing is heard after that timeframe, provides that the TRO is unenforceable, unless the court grants a continuance for a reasonable period. (§§ 242(b) & 245.)
4. Establishes, in the Rules of Court, processes for a family court to determine whether a restrained party has a firearm in their control, and, if a protective order has been issued, to determine if the restrained party has properly disposed of the firearm. (Cal. Rules of Court, § 5.495.)
   1. Requires, when relevant information is presented at a court at any noticed hearing that the person has a firearm, that the court consider that information to determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the person subject to the protective order is violating the requirements established under 1), above. (Id. at (c).)
   2. Authorizes the court to make this determination at a noticed hearing when a protective order is issued, at a subsequent review hearing, or at any subsequent family law hearing while the order remains in effect. (Id. at (d)(2).) A review hearing must be set within 10 days after the noticed hearing at which the information was presented. (Id. at (e)(2).) If the restrained person is not present when the court sets the review hearing, the protected person must provide notice of the review hearing to the restrained person at least two court days before the review hearing, by personal service, or by mail to the restrained person’s known address. (Id.)
   3. Authorizes the court to extend the date of the review hearing for a reasonable period or remove it from the calendar. (Id. at (e)(3).)
   4. Requires the court to order the restrained person to appear at the review hearing, but permits the court to conduct the review hearing in their absence. (Id. at (e)(4), (5).) Provides that a party may appear telephonically. (Id. at (e)(6).)
5. Establishes a similar Rule of Court applicable when a court issues a criminal protective order. (Cal. Rules of Court, § 4.700.)
   1. Requires the court issuing the criminal protective order to consider all credible information to determine if there is good cause to believe a defendant has a firearm within their immediate possession or control. (Id. at (c)(1).)
   2. If the court finds good cause, the court must set a review hearing to ascertain if the defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish the firearm. Unless the defendant is in custody at the time, the review hearing is supposed to occur within two court days after issuance of the criminal protective order, but the court can extend this period to five days if circumstances warrant. The defendant must be given the opportunity to present information at the review hearing to refute the allegation. (Id. at (c)(2).)
   3. Provides that the court may, and in some circumstances, should, order the defendant to personally appear at the review hearing. (Id. at (c)(3).)
   4. If the court finds a violation, requires the court to consider whether bail or release on own recognizance is appropriate. If the defendant does not appear at the hearing and the court orders that bail be revoked, the court should issue a bench warrant. (Id. at (d)(1).)
   5. Places the burden of proof on the prosecution. (Id. at (d)(3).)
6. Establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody to a party found to have perpetrated domestic violence in the previous five years is detrimental to the best interest of the child. (§ 3044(a); see §§ 3011 & 3020.)
   1. Permits this presumption to be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id.)
   2. Requires the court to consider specified factors in determining whether this presumption has been rebutted, including whether the perpetrator is restrained by a protective order or restraining order and has failed to comply with its terms and conditions. (§ 3044(b).)
   3. Requires, in the Rules of Court, that a court specifically consider whether a restrained party violated the requirement under section 6389 that they relinquish their firearm. (Cal. Rules of Court, § 5.495(f)(1).)

This bill:

1. Requires a court, in making a custody determination under 6), above, to specifically consider whether the perpetrator has violated the requirement under section 6389 that they relinquish their firearm or ammunition.
2. Codifies the general framework of Rule of Court 5.495, described above, but expands its scope and accelerates the timeline for the court to hold a hearing. Specifically:
   1. Requires a court, when issuing a protective order, including a TRO, to determine by a preponderance of evidence whether the person subject to the protective order has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of section 6389. Requires the court to consider all information presented at a notice hearing, as specified.
   2. Requires this determination to be made at the first noticed hearing at which a protective order is issued, including a TRO issued on an ex parte basis, regardless of whether the noticed hearing is continued or rescheduled with respect to other procedural or factual issues before the court.
   3. Requires the court to make written findings on the record of its determination.
      1. If the court determines the restrained person has violated section 6893, the court must notify law enforcement and provide its written findings to any party at the hearing and, upon request, any party not at the hearing.
      2. If the court determines there is no such violation, requires the court to include the specific basis for its determination in the written findings, as provided.
   4. Additionally requires the court, if it determines the restrained party violated section 6983, to set a review hearing to determine if such a violation occurred.
      1. The hearing must occur two days after the noticed hearing described above, but the court may extend this period to five days for good cause evidenced by written findings on the record.
      2. The court may remove the review hearing from the calendar only after making written findings on the record of good cause and providing a copy of the written findings to the protected party.
   5. The court may order the restrained party to appear at the review hearing, but may conduct the hearing in their absence, and may authorize any party to appear telephonically.
   6. If the restrained party is not present at the hearing when the review hearing is set, requires the protected party to provide notice of the review hearing to the restrained party as soon as practically possible before the review hearing by personal service, mail to the restrained person’s last known address, or electronic service to the person’s last known email address.
3. Generally codifies Rule of Court 4.700, described above, which applies to criminal protective orders. Makes certain recommendations in that rule mandatory.

COMMENTS

1. Protective orders and the firearm relinquishment requirement

The Domestic Violence Protection Act (§ 6200 et seq.) seeks to prevent acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and to provide for a separation of persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable these persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. This act enables a party to seek a “protective order,” also known as a restraining order, which may be issued to protect a person to enjoin specific acts of abuse, exclude a person from a dwelling, or enjoin other specified behavior. (§ 6218.)

Family Code section 6389 makes it a misdemeanor or a wobbler for a person subject to a domestic violence protective order to own, possess, purchase, or receive a firearm or ammunition while the protective order is in effect. (§ 6389(a); Pen. Code § 29825.) Firearms that are within the possession or control of the restrained person must be relinquished: “[u]pon issuance of a protective order, as defined in Section 6218, the court shall order the respondent to relinquish any firearm in the respondent’s immediate possession or control or subject to the respondent’s immediate possession or control.” (§ 6389(c)(1).) The relinquishment process “shall occur by immediately surrendering the firearm in a safe manner, upon request of any law enforcement officer, to the control of the officer, after being served with the protective order.” (§ 6389(c)(2).) “Alternatively,” if there is no request for relinquishment, “the relinquishment shall occur within 24 hours of being served with the order, by either surrendering the firearm in a safe manner to the control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer … .” (Id.) Within 48 hours of service of the order, the restrained person must file a receipt with the court that issued the order and the law enforcement agency that served it showing that the firearm was surrendered to law enforcement or sold to a licensed gun dealer. (§ 6389(c)(2).)

2. Nonsubstantive change to factors affecting custody determinations

“Under California’s statutory scheme governing child custody and visitation determinations, the overarching concern is the best interest of the child.” (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255; see §§ 3011, 3020, 3040 & 3041.) That scheme “allows the court and the family the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.” (§ 3040(c).) When determining the best interest of a child, a court may consider any relevant factors, and must consider the following: the health, safety, and welfare of the child; any history of abuse by the party seeking custody; the nature and amount of contact with the parents; and substance abuse by a parent. (§ 3011; see also § 3020.) Custody and visitation orders are reviewed under the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard, under which reversal is warranted only “if there is no reasonable basis upon which the trial court could conclude that its decision advanced the best interests of the child.” (Ed H. v. Ashley C. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 899, 904.)

Section 3044(a) establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody to a party found to have perpetrated domestic violence in the previous five years is detrimental to the best interest of the child. The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id.) In determining whether the presumption has been rebutted, the court must consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator is restrained by a protective order and has failed to comply with its terms and conditions. (§ 3044(b).) Under Rule of Court 5.495(f)(1), a court must specifically consider whether a restrained party violated the requirement under section 6389 that they relinquish their firearm. This rule is simply a specific implementation of a general statutory requirement and thus is not itself substantive.

This bill would codify that rule.

3. Expedites and expands the existing process for determining if a restrained party failed to relinquish a firearm

The author describes the background for the bill as follows:

In 2018, there were over 166,000 domestic violence-related calls for assistance across the state of California. Over 45% percent of those calls reported some type of weapon being involved in the incident. We know that the presence of a firearm in the home during an incident of domestic violence increases the risk of homicide by at least 500%.

While California has some of the most far-reaching and comprehensive gun legislation on the books, there are still over 23,000 armed prohibited persons who have not relinquished their firearms. Of those prohibited persons who have failed to relinquish their weapons, 18% were prohibited due to a restraining order.

In a 2008 California Judicial Council report titled, Recommended Guidelines and Practices for Improving the Administration of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases, the Judicial Council recommended adopting Rules of Court that would require a judge to coordinate with law enforcement (in civil cases) or the prosecutor (in criminal cases) at the earliest moment possible in domestic violence restraining order court proceedings to identify whether the subject has firearms, and if so, to set up review hearings to ensure the relinquishment actually takes place. […]

The Rules of Court the author refers to are Rule 4.700, which governs criminal protective orders, and Rule 5.495, which governs domestic violence protective orders.

Rule 4.700 requires the court issuing the criminal protective order to consider all credible information to determine if there is good cause to believe a defendant has a firearm within their immediate possession or control. (Id. at (c)(1).) If the court finds good cause, the court must set a review hearing to ascertain if the defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish the firearm. Unless the defendant is in custody at the time, the review hearing is supposed to occur within two court days after issuance of the criminal protective order, but the court can extend this period to five days if circumstances warrant. The defendant must be given the opportunity to present information at the review hearing to refute the allegation. (Id. at (c)(2).) The Rule provides that the court may, and in some circumstances, should, order the defendant to personally appear at the review hearing. (Id. at (c)(3).) If the court finds a violation, the court must consider whether bail or release on own recognizance is appropriate. If the defendant does not appear at the hearing and the court orders that bail be revoked, the court should issue a bench warrant. (Id. at (d)(1).) Finally, the Rule places the burden of proof on the prosecution. (Id. at (d)(3).)

Rule 5.495 establishes a similar process applicable to domestic violence restraining orders. “When relevant information is presented to the court at any noticed hearing that a restrained person has a firearm, the court must consider that information to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person subject to a protective order as defined in Family Code section 6218 … has a firearm in or subject to his or her immediate possession or control in violation of Family Code section 6389.” (Id. at (c).) “The court may make the determination at any noticed hearing when a domestic violence protective order is issued, at a subsequent review hearing, or at any subsequent family or juvenile law hearing while the order remains in effect.” (Id. at (d)(2).) “The review hearing must be held within 10 court days after the noticed hearing at which the information was presented.” (Id. at (e)(2).) “If the restrained person is not present when the court sets the review hearing, the protected person must provide notice of the review hearing to the restrained person at least 2 court days before the review hearing … by personal service, or by mail to the restrained person’s known address.” (Id.) “The court may for good cause extend the date of the review hearing for a reasonable period or remove it from the calendar.” (Id. at (e)(3).) The court must order the restrained person to appear at the review hearing, but may conduct the review hearing in their absence. (Id. at (e)(4), (5).) Finally, the rule provides that a party may appear telephonically. (Id. at (e)(6).)

The author argues that differences between the criminal rule and the civil rule are unjustified and insufficiently protective of domestic violence victims. The author describes the impetus for the bill as follows:

[…] The civil rule adopted as a result of this report used permissive language, while the criminal rule used prescriptive language. It is unclear why the two rules that were adopted should be applied differently in the civil and criminal context and why the civil timelines for a review hearing are longer than the criminal timelines. The danger that exists when firearms are present in domestic violence situations is not diminished simply because the case is in a civil courtroom.

Since the introduction of these Rules of Court, they have been implemented on a limited, and oftentimes, inconsistent basis across California. In the civil context, this is especially concerning because the only judicial officer with knowledge of the firearm relinquishment process is the judge. Unlike in the criminal context, there is no outside law enforcement, probation officer, or prosecutor present in the courtroom to assist in conducting oversight and to ensure compliance with the firearm relinquishment.

In these civil domestic violence restraining order cases the burden is on the victim to know about the firearm relinquishment requirement and to request that the court conduct oversight to ensure the prohibited person is no longer armed. Between 60-90% of family law litigants are self-represented when they go to file for a restraining order and have to navigate the judicial system on their own. By mandating that courts conduct this oversight at the earliest point possible, we are protecting victims of domestic violence and the public at large.

This bill codifies the general framework of Rule of Court 5.495 but expands its scope and accelerates the timeline for the court to hold a hearing. One manner in which the bill expands on the rule is the express inclusion of TROs. Generally, a protective order may be issued ex parte — in the absence of the restrained party—as long as a duly noticed hearing is held. However, because the need for a restraining order often arises in emergency situations that do not allow for these procedural formalities to be observed, a court may also issue a TRO without notice to the respondent if it is alleged that irreparable injury would result to the petitioner before the matter can be heard on notice. (§ 241.)^[2] Because a restrained party would not have had the opportunity to defend their interests, TROs are of necessity short in duration. If a noticed hearing is not held within 21 days (or 25 if the court finds good cause), the TRO is no longer enforceable, unless a court grants a continuance. (§§ 242 & 245.) After a noticed hearing, the court is authorized to extend the original TRO into a protective order that may last up to five years.

Although the bill’s language regarding TROs is not entirely clear, the author has indicated the bill is not intended to encompass TROs issued without notice to the respondent. Instead, the bill would apply to TROs only when a noticed hearing is held; otherwise, there would be no possibility of an underlying violation of an existing relinquishment requirement. Indeed, the bill appears to presume the existence of a TRO that was issued without notice, as it would require the court to make its determination at the first noticed hearing: if the first noticed hearing is the protected party’s initial attempt to seek a protective order against the other party, it again follows that there would be no possibility of an underlying violation. In a related vein, CJA, writing in opposition to the bill, questions how a party would know to bring proof of firearm possession to the first noticed hearing at which a protective order or TRO is issued.

The Judicial Council joins CJA in opposing the bill. Both organizations oppose based on a number of granular concerns with the implementation of the bill, particularly with regard to the provisions governing domestic violence protective orders. Among other things, the organizations express concerns regarding the requirement that the court, upon finding that a violation occurred, “communicate” with law enforcement. Judicial Council describes this requirement as “a vague and difficult to implement directive,” while CJA states: “This is the court taking an active role in investigation which brings up separation of powers problems.” Both organizations point out that it is not clear what law enforcement should do with the information.

Judicial Council and CJA also express concerns over reducing the period in which a court requires a review hearing to two days. Judicial Council notes: “This timeframe is present in the current criminal rule of court, but those orders are issued in the context of a criminal prosecution in which the restrained person is also a criminal defendant represented by counsel.” CJA adds: “If the person did not appear at the initial hearing, two days’ notice is unrealistic [for] giving them actual notice of the court hearing, especially when the Rule of Court provides for 10 court days.” CJA also notes that “[s]ervice by mail is unlikely to be timely.” Both entities urge the author to hold the bill in order to engage in further discussions with stakeholders.

In response, the author states: “I sympathize with the Judicial Council’s perceived ambiguities in the bill, and will gladly continue working with them next year on any clean up we may need, but this issue is too important. To leave guns in the hands of dangerous and violent people for another year would be disastrous for our communities, our families, and our law enforcement.”

4. Support

Supporters include law enforcement, district attorneys, and organizations that work to prevent domestic violence. They refer to firsthand experience with the plight of domestic violence victims and urge that everything possible be done to help these victims. San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar writes: “The possession of weapons by those ... engaged in these volatile situation with their family members can provide the very means to elevate the violence to a horrific conclusion.”

Supporters also emphasize that victims of domestic violence are at the greatest risk when they attempt to leave a relationship, a risk that is heightened when the abuser owns a gun. The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes: “The most dangerous time for a domestic violence survivor is when the survivor chooses to leave the relationship. One-fifth of homicide victims with restrain orders are murdered within two days of obtaining the order, and one-third are murdered within the first month. The presence of a gun increases the risk of domestic violence homicide by 500 percent.”

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer adds: “As a long-time prosecutor and victims’ right[s] advocate, I have seen firsthand how domestic violence can force a victim to live in a constant state of fear and uncertainty. This commonsense legislation will protect victims of abuse and their families by strengthening and clarifying the court process for firearm relinquishment and those who, under current law, should not have guns because they have a domestic violence restraining order against them.”

SUPPORT

California District Attorneys Association

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Police Chiefs Association

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer

San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar

OPPOSITION

California Judges Association

Judicial Council of California

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known

Prior legislation: SB 1433 (Alquist, Ch. 765, Stats. 2012) revised and tightened laws concerning domestic violence protective orders with respect to firearms owned or possessed by the subject of such an order.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Public Safety Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

**************

1. All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise specified. ↑

2. A TRO is distinct from an “emergency protective order,” which is an order specifically requested by a law enforcement official and that a judicial officer finds necessary to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of domestic violence, child abuse, child abduction, or abuse of an elder or dependent adult. (§§ 6250, 6250.3, 6251.) An emergency protective order is not subject to the provisions governing TROs. (See § 240.) ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 9/11/19 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Skinner, Moorlach, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Morrell

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 8-0, 9/11/19 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Jackson, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Jones, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Borgeas

SUBJECT: Firearm relinquishment: persons under protective orders

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill codifies generally existing Rules of Court related to relinquishment of firearms following the issuance of a protective order but makes specified modifications.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes a court with jurisdiction over a pending criminal matter, upon good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, may issue a criminal protective order, as specified. (Pen. Code, 136.2, subd. (a).)
2. Prohibits a defendant subject to a criminal protective order from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm while the protective order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (d)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9, subd. (e).)
3. Requires a court, upon issuing a protective order, to order the respondent to relinquish any firearm in the respondent’s immediate control and makes a violation of the order a crime. (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.9, subd. (b).)
4. Requires the respondent, upon request of any law enforcement officer, or within 24 hours of being served with the order, to surrender to sell the firearm, as specified, and file with the court a receipt showing the firearm was surrendered or sold within 48 hours after receiving the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9, subd. (b).)
5. States that a person who violates a criminal protective order may be punished for the substantive crime of preventing or dissuading a witness or victim from testifying or doing other acts pursuant to Penal Code Section 136.1 which is punishable as a wobbler, or for a contempt of court. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (b).)
6. Provides that when a court issues a criminal protective order during a criminal case or as a condition of probation against a defendant charged with a crime of domestic violence, the court must consider all credible information to determine if there is good cause to believe that the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control, including information provided on behalf of the defendant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.700.)
7. States that if the court finds good cause to believe the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control, the court must set a review hearing to ascertain whether the defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish the firearm. (Id.)
8. Provides that the review hearing should occur within two court days after issuance of the criminal protective order, unless the defendant is in custody at the time; if circumstances warrant, the court may extend the review hearing to occur within five court days after issuance of the criminal protective order. (Id.)
9. Requires the court to give the defendant an opportunity to present information at the review hearing to refute the allegation that he or she owns firearms. (Id.)
10. States that if the defendant is in custody at the time the criminal protective order is issued, the court should order the defendant to appear for a review hearing within two court days after the defendant’s release from custody. (Id.)
11. States that the defendant may be ordered to personally appear at the review hearing. (Id.)
12. Provides that if the court has issued a criminal protective order during the pendency of a criminal case, at the review hearing if the court finds that the defendant has a firearm in or subject to his or her immediate possession or control, the court must consider whether bail, as set, or defendant’s release on own recognizance is appropriate. If the defendant does not appear at the hearing and the court orders that bail be revoked, the court should issue a bench warrant. (Id.)
13. Provides that if the criminal protective order is issued as a condition of probation, and the court finds at the review hearing that the defendant has a firearm in or subject to his or her immediate possession or control, the court must proceed with further sentencing. (Id.)
14. States that in any review hearing to determine whether a defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish firearms, the burden is on the prosecution. (Id.)
15. Authorizes protective orders to be issued by the family court in domestic violence cases. (Fam. Code, § 6380 et seq.)
16. States that a person who is the subject of a protective order issued by the family court shall not own, possess, purchase, or receive a firearm or ammunition while the firearm is in effect. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a wobbler depending on the circumstance. (Fam. Code, § 6389; Pen. Code, § 29825.)
17. Requires the family court, in making the determination of the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody, to consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator of domestic violence is restrained by a protective order or restraining order and has complied with that order. (Fam. Code, § 3044.)
18. Requires when relevant information is presented to the family court at any noticed hearing that a restrained person has a firearm, the court must consider that information to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person subject to a protective order has a firearm in his or her immediate possession or control. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.495.)
19. Provides that in making a determination under this rule, the court may consider whether the restrained person filed a firearm relinquishment, storage, or sales receipt or if an exemption from the firearm prohibition was granted. This determination may be made at any noticed hearing when a domestic violence protective order is issued, at a subsequent review hearing or any subsequent hearing while the order remains in effect. (Id.)
20. States that if the court makes a determination that the restrained person has a firearm in violation the protective order, the court must make a written record of the determination and provide a copy to any party who is present at the hearing and, upon request, to any party not present at the hearing. (Id.)
21. States that when the court is provided with information relevant to whether the person subject to a protective order has a firearm in his or her immediate possession or control, the court may set a review hearing to be held within 10 court days after the noticed hearing at which the information was presented. (Id.)
22. Provides that if the restrained person is not present when the court sets the review hearing, the protected person must provide notice of the review hearing to the restrained person at least two court days before the review hearing, by personal service or by mail to the restrained person’s last known address. (Id.)
23. Authorizes the family court to extend the date of the review hearing for a reasonable period of remove it from the calendar. (Id.)
24. Requires the court to order the restrained person to appear at the review hearing; the court may conduct the hearing in the absence of the protected person. (Id.)
25. States that the court may permit a party to appear at the review hearing by telephone. (Id.)
26. States that if the court determines that the restrained person has a firearm in violation of the protective order, the court must consider that determination when deciding the issue of child custody. (Id.)

This bill:

1. Codifies California Rule of Court 4.700.
2. Specifies that in one of the additional factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody shall include whether the perpetrator of domestic violence is, or has been in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order.
3. Codifies California Rule of Court 5.495 but makes the following changes:
   1. Requires the court to make the determination whether the person subject to the protective order has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition when issuing temporary protective orders;
   2. Requires the court to make this determination at the first noticed hearing at which the protective order is issued, including but not limited to a temporary protective order issued on an ex parte basis, regardless of whether the noticed hearing is continued or rescheduled with respect to other procedural or factual issues before the court;
   3. Provides that if the court determines that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition, the court shall communicate that determination to the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the restrained person;
   4. States that if the court determines that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition, the court shall set a review hearing to take place within two court days after the noticed hearing at which the court the determination. The court may extend the date of the review by no more than five court days for good cause evidenced by written findings on the record;
   5. States that the court may only remove the review hearing from the calendar only after making written findings, on the record, of the good cause for removing the review hearing and providing a copy of the written findings to the protected party; and,
   6. Authorizes to permit any party to appear at the review hearing by electronic means, in addition to by telephone.

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

In a 2008 California Judicial Council report titled, Recommended Guidelines and Practices for Improving the Administration of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases, the Judicial Council recommended adopting Rules of Court that would require a judge to coordinate with law enforcement (in civil cases) or the prosecutor (in criminal cases) at the earliest moment possible in domestic violence restraining order court proceedings to identify whether the subject has firearms, and if so, to set up review hearings to ensure the relinquishment actually takes place.

Rule 4.700 (criminal) was adopted in 2010 and Rule 5.495 (civil) was adopted in 2014 in accordance with the 2008 report suggestions. While the Judicial Council’s recommendation in their 2008 report used prescriptive “shall” language, the civil rule that was adopted used permissive “may” language. It is unclear why these two rules should be applied differently in the civil and criminal context and why the civil timelines for a review hearing are longer than the criminal timelines. The danger and exigency that exists when firearms are present in domestic violence situations is not diminished simply because the case is in a civil courtroom.

Since the introduction of these Rules of Court, they have been implemented on a limited, and oftentimes, inconsistent basis across California. In the civil context, this is especially concerning because the only judicial officer with knowledge of the firearm relinquishment process is the judge. Unlike in the criminal context, there is no outside law enforcement, probation officer, or prosecutor present in the courtroom to assist in conducting oversight and to ensure compliance with the firearm relinquishment.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/19)

California District Attorneys Association

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Police Chiefs Association

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)

California Judges Association

Judicial Council of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, “Domestic violence remains one of the most significant concerns within our communities. The possession of weapons by those in engaged in these volatile situations with their family members can provide the very means to elevate the violence to a horrific conclusion. We must do everything lawfully within our power to take the firearms out of the hands of those who will be tempted to use them against others. The Courts and justice system must do all it can to verify the relinquishment of firearms and ammunition by those ordered to do so.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Judicial Council of California, “While AB 465 uses existing rules of court as its starting point, the newly proposed Family Code statute on firearms relinquishment in Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) matters diverges significantly form the current rule of court in ways that present significant concerns about notice coupled with workload challenges for family courts. DVPA actions are common, and they must be heard within a short period of time in order to protected alleged victims and provide due process to restrained persons. As a result, significant changes to the procedures for hearing these matters necessarily has a significant impact on court operations, calendaring, staffing assignments, and case management systems, and may well cause significant delays in other types of family law proceedings. . . .

“. . . The Judicial Council would very much like the opportunity to engage in further discussions with the author and other stakeholders on improvements to the current process that might better protect the public as well as those who seek these orders. The language before us presents too many ambiguities and problems. The issues presented here are critical and should be addressed in a fashion that allows the partners, especially the courts, to offer solutions that will result in greater success and protection of the public.”

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

9/11/19 20:20:34

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SUBJECT: Firearm relinquishment: persons under protective orders

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill codifies generally existing Rules of Court related to relinquishment of firearms following the issuance of a protective order but makes specified modifications.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes a court with jurisdiction over a pending criminal matter, upon good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur, may issue a criminal protective order, as specified. (Pen. Code, 136.2, subd. (a).)
2. Prohibits a defendant subject to a criminal protective order from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm while the protective order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (d)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9, subd. (e).)
3. Requires a court, upon issuing a protective order, to order the respondent to relinquish any firearm in the respondent’s immediate control and makes a violation of the order a crime. (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.9, subd. (b).)
4. Requires the respondent, upon request of any law enforcement officer, or within 24 hours of being served with the order, to surrender to sell the firearm, as specified, and file with the court a receipt showing the firearm was surrendered or sold within 48 hours after receiving the order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.9, subd. (b).)
5. States that a person who violates a criminal protective order may be punished for the substantive crime of preventing or dissuading a witness or victim from testifying or doing other acts pursuant to Penal Code Section 136.1 which is punishable as a wobbler, or for a contempt of court. (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (b).)
6. Provides that when a court issues a criminal protective order during a criminal case or as a condition of probation against a defendant charged with a crime of domestic violence, the court must consider all credible information to determine if there is good cause to believe that the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control, including information provided on behalf of the defendant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.700.)
7. States that if the court finds good cause to believe the defendant has a firearm within his or her immediate possession or control, the court must set a review hearing to ascertain whether the defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish the firearm. (Id.)
8. Provides that the review hearing should occur within two court days after issuance of the criminal protective order, unless the defendant is in custody at the time; if circumstances warrant, the court may extend the review hearing to occur within five court days after issuance of the criminal protective order. (Id.)
9. Requires the court to give the defendant an opportunity to present information at the review hearing to refute the allegation that he or she owns firearms. (Id.)
10. States that if the defendant is in custody at the time the criminal protective order is issued, the court should order the defendant to appear for a review hearing within two court days after the defendant’s release from custody. (Id.)
11. States that the defendant may be ordered to personally appear at the review hearing. (Id.)
12. Provides that if the court has issued a criminal protective order during the pendency of a criminal case, at the review hearing if the court finds that the defendant has a firearm in or subject to his or her immediate possession or control, the court must consider whether bail, as set, or defendant’s release on own recognizance is appropriate. If the defendant does not appear at the hearing and the court orders that bail be revoked, the court should issue a bench warrant. (Id.)
13. Provides that if the criminal protective order is issued as a condition of probation, and the court finds at the review hearing that the defendant has a firearm in or subject to his or her immediate possession or control, the court must proceed with further sentencing. (Id.)
14. States that in any review hearing to determine whether a defendant has complied with the requirement to relinquish firearms, the burden is on the prosecution. (Id.)
15. Authorizes protective orders to be issued by the family court in domestic violence cases. (Fam. Code, § 6380 et seq.)
16. States that a person who is the subject of a protective order issued by the family court shall not own, possess, purchase, or receive a firearm or ammunition while the firearm is in effect. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a wobbler depending on the circumstance. (Fam. Code, § 6389; Pen. Code, § 29825.)
17. Requires the family court, in making the determination of the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody, to consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator of domestic violence is restrained by a protective order or restraining order and has complied with that order. (Fam. Code, § 3044.)
18. Requires when relevant information is presented to the family court at any noticed hearing that a restrained person has a firearm, the court must consider that information to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the person subject to a protective order has a firearm in his or her immediate possession or control. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.495.)
19. Provides that in making a determination under this rule, the court may consider whether the restrained person filed a firearm relinquishment, storage, or sales receipt or if an exemption from the firearm prohibition was granted. This determination may be made at any noticed hearing when a domestic violence protective order is issued, at a subsequent review hearing or any subsequent hearing while the order remains in effect. (Id.)
20. States that if the court makes a determination that the restrained person has a firearm in violation the protective order, the court must make a written record of the determination and provide a copy to any party who is present at the hearing and, upon request, to any party not present at the hearing. (Id.)
21. States that when the court is provided with information relevant to whether the person subject to a protective order has a firearm in his or her immediate possession or control, the court may set a review hearing to be held within 10 court days after the noticed hearing at which the information was presented. (Id.)
22. Provides that if the restrained person is not present when the court sets the review hearing, the protected person must provide notice of the review hearing to the restrained person at least two court days before the review hearing, by personal service or by mail to the restrained person’s last known address. (Id.)
23. Authorizes the family court to extend the date of the review hearing for a reasonable period of remove it from the calendar. (Id.)
24. Requires the court to order the restrained person to appear at the review hearing; the court may conduct the hearing in the absence of the protected person. (Id.)
25. States that the court may permit a party to appear at the review hearing by telephone. (Id.)
26. States that if the court determines that the restrained person has a firearm in violation of the protective order, the court must consider that determination when deciding the issue of child custody. (Id.)

This bill:

1. Codifies California Rule of Court 4.700.
2. Specifies that in one of the additional factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody shall include whether the perpetrator of domestic violence is, or has been in possession or control of a firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order.
3. Codifies California Rule of Court 5.495 but makes the following changes:
   1. Requires the court to make the determination whether the person subject to the protective order has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition when issuing temporary protective orders;
   2. Requires the court to make this determination at the first noticed hearing at which the protective order is issued, including but not limited to a temporary protective order issued on an ex parte basis, regardless of whether the noticed hearing is continued or rescheduled with respect to other procedural or factual issues before the court;
   3. Provides that if the court determines that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition, the court shall communicate that determination to the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the restrained person;
   4. States that if the court determines that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition, the court shall set a review hearing to take place within two court days after the noticed hearing at which the court the determination. The court may extend the date of the review by no more than five court days for good cause evidenced by written findings on the record;
   5. States that the court may only remove the review hearing from the calendar only after making written findings, on the record, of the good cause for removing the review hearing and providing a copy of the written findings to the protected party; and,
   6. Authorizes to permit any party to appear at the review hearing by electronic means, in addition to by telephone.

Comments

According to the author of this bill:

In a 2008 California Judicial Council report titled, Recommended Guidelines and Practices for Improving the Administration of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases, the Judicial Council recommended adopting Rules of Court that would require a judge to coordinate with law enforcement (in civil cases) or the prosecutor (in criminal cases) at the earliest moment possible in domestic violence restraining order court proceedings to identify whether the subject has firearms, and if so, to set up review hearings to ensure the relinquishment actually takes place.

Rule 4.700 (criminal) was adopted in 2010 and Rule 5.495 (civil) was adopted in 2014 in accordance with the 2008 report suggestions. While the Judicial Council’s recommendation in their 2008 report used prescriptive “shall” language, the civil rule that was adopted used permissive “may” language. It is unclear why these two rules should be applied differently in the civil and criminal context and why the civil timelines for a review hearing are longer than the criminal timelines. The danger and exigency that exists when firearms are present in domestic violence situations is not diminished simply because the case is in a civil courtroom.

Since the introduction of these Rules of Court, they have been implemented on a limited, and oftentimes, inconsistent basis across California. In the civil context, this is especially concerning because the only judicial officer with knowledge of the firearm relinquishment process is the judge. Unlike in the criminal context, there is no outside law enforcement, probation officer, or prosecutor present in the courtroom to assist in conducting oversight and to ensure compliance with the firearm relinquishment.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/19)

California District Attorneys Association

California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

California Police Chiefs Association

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)

California Judges Association

Judicial Council of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office, “Domestic violence remains one of the most significant concerns within our communities. The possession of weapons by those in engaged in these volatile situations with their family members can provide the very means to elevate the violence to a horrific conclusion. We must do everything lawfully within our power to take the firearms out of the hands of those who will be tempted to use them against others. The Courts and justice system must do all it can to verify the relinquishment of firearms and ammunition by those ordered to do so.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Judicial Council of California, “While AB 465 uses existing rules of court as its starting point, the newly proposed Family Code statute on firearms relinquishment in Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) matters diverges significantly form the current rule of court in ways that present significant concerns about notice coupled with workload challenges for family courts. DVPA actions are common, and they must be heard within a short period of time in order to protected alleged victims and provide due process to restrained persons. As a result, significant changes to the procedures for hearing these matters necessarily has a significant impact on court operations, calendaring, staffing assignments, and case management systems, and may well cause significant delays in other types of family law proceedings. . . .

“. . . The Judicial Council would very much like the opportunity to engage in further discussions with the author and other stakeholders on improvements to the current process that might better protect the public as well as those who seek these orders. The language before us presents too many ambiguities and problems. The issues presented here are critical and should be addressed in a fashion that allows the partners, especially the courts, to offer solutions that will result in greater success and protection of the public.”

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

9/10/19 23:11:23

**** END ****

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D)

Amended: 5/29/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/10/19

AYES: Hurtado, Beall, Jackson, Pan, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Jackson, Borgeas, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Jones, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/25/19 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Juveniles: dual status children

SOURCE: Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a number of definitions to be used when tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specified reasons, including but not limited to children who are, or are at risk of, being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected or being exploited, to ensure their safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
3. Permits the juvenile court to order and adjudge to be a ward of the court the following individuals, as specified: a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who has committed a status offense; a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who violates state or federal law; or, a minor under the age of 12 who is alleged to have committed certain violent crimes. (WIC 725(b))
4. Requires the court, in certain circumstances, to order the care, custody, and control of a minor or nonminor adjudged a ward of the court to be under the control of a probation officer, and authorizes the probation officer to place the minor or nonminor in a number of settings, including, as specified and with age restrictions in some cases: the approved home of a relative, or nonrelative extended family member; a foster home, approved resource family home, or a home or facility in accordance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act; a suitable licensed community care facility; a foster family agency, in a suitable certified family home or with a resource family; and a group home or short-term residential therapeutic program. (WIC 727)
5. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services (CWS) agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society, as specified. Further, though, authorizes the probation department and the CWS agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (WIC 241.1)
6. Requires the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified. (WIC 241.2(a))
7. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and juvenile justice system who are within their counties; and, further, requires CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. (WIC 241.2(b))

This bill:

1. States legislative intent to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.
2. Replaces, in one section of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
3. Repeals provisions of current law that require the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified.
4. Defines various terms relating to dual status youth for the purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.
5. Makes technical changes.

Background

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “AB 465 provides guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.” This bill codifies standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems, as they were defined by a statutorily required working group that was convened by the Judicial Council. “There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both system, this bill seeks to create such definitions in statute as well as common identifiers that the counties can use to track outcomes for this population,” per the author.

Child welfare services. California’s CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of the children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible. In instances where reunification is not possible, it is the state’s goal to provide a permanent placement alternative such as adoption or guardianship, with the second highest placement priority of the CWS system being to unite children with other relatives or nonrelative extended family members.

As of October 1, 2018, there were 59,487 children in California’s CWS system.

Dual status youth. In 2004, California passed AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004), which made it possible for “dual status youth” who are involved in both the CWS and the juvenile justice systems to receive the oversight and benefits of both systems. Prior to passage of AB 129, the law required that cases involving foster youth who were also involved in the juvenile justice system had to be placed into either the child welfare or the justice system.

AB 129 allowed counties to voluntarily adopt formal dual status protocols, through which youth can simultaneously be under the formal jurisdiction of both the dependency and delinquency courts. Per AB 129, those protocols must describe the process for assessing the eligibility for and necessity of dual status youth, the communication between judges in the dependency and delinquency courts, the collection of data for the Judicial Council evaluation, and the adoption of either a “lead court/lead agency” or “on-hold” model.

AB 129 also required Judicial Council to collect and compile data, to evaluate the results of implementing the dual status protocols, and report its finding to the Legislature. The study, which was conducted in 2007, revealed that the counties’ implementation of protocols and experiences varied greatly.

According to the Judicial Council Web site, only 18 of California's 58 counties have elected to develop dual status protocols. Because of local flexibility, dual status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and may or may not be comparable. Additionally, some of the counties that have not opted to adopt dual status protocols are working on independent projects to help dual status youth.

Historically, outcomes for dual status youth have been reported to be poorer than outcomes for their non-system-involved peers or for peers who are involved in only one system. It is thus often believed that dually involved youth require more, and more intensive, supports and services to address their unique needs. A 2016 report from the California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership noted that, “young people who come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems are among the most vulnerable of California’s children. These young people are more likely to be separated from their families, experience frequent placement changes, suffer behavioral health problems, and have poor education outcomes when compared with children not in contact with both systems.”

State Auditor findings on dual status youth. In June 2015, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the Bureau of State Audits, at the request of the author of this bill, to conduct an audit to determine whether counties are addressing the needs of dual status youth. The resulting report was issued in February of 2016.^[1] As noted in the State Auditor’s report, the audit was unable to determine how county programs were performing because the state had not issued guidelines to counties on how to track or identify dual status youth and thus most counties were found to not be assessing the effectiveness of their efforts.

Per the Auditor, “the State has not defined key terms or established outcomes to track related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot monitor the outcomes for this population statewide. Furthermore, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the populations of youth involved in dual status and nondual status counties.” Without consistent definitions, and tracking of attributes and outcomes, it is impossible to reach conclusions about best models and practices, determined the Auditor. For example, the counties all defined recidivism differently, so it was not possible to say which protocols, programs or services might be working to reduce recidivism in these youth.

The Auditor recommended that the Legislature require Judicial Council to work with a variety specified of stakeholders to develop common definitions and outcome measures. The Auditor also recommended that CDSS, which operates the state case management automation system for tracking youth in the child welfare system (CWS/CMS), develop a function in that system to allow staff in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to identify youth involved with both systems and issue guidance on how to use that function and fully track those youth.

AB 1911. AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) implemented many of the State Auditor’s recommendations related to the Judicial Council and CDSS. AB 1911 required CDSS to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that would enable the identification of a dual-status or crossover youth in a county by the county’s child welfare agency and probation department. It also required CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of dual-status youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. According to CDSS, the required functionality is being piloted at this time in CWS/CMS to track dual-status and crossover youth. CDSS further reports that the functionality should be available for all counties use in early June and CDSS has already issued an All-County Letter, No. 17-59, with instructions for the project codes to be utilized.

AB 1911 also required the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that was required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcomes tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Pursuant to these requirements, the Judicial Council convened a working group of representatives from probation, county and state social services, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials. This working group met several times over the course of one year, while also conducting research and consulting various experts on the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In 2017, the Judicial Council released the result of working group’s efforts – a report entitled “Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911).” This report, in compliance with the requirements of AB 1911, presented various recommendations relating to codifying terms relating to dual status youth and counties collection of data on that population. (For an enumerated list of these recommendations, see the Senate Human Services Committee’s analysis of this bill.)

This bill codifies the report’s recommendations related to statutory terminology and the adoption and codification of certain terminology.

Governor’s propose reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice. In his proposed 2019-20 Budget, Governor Newsom included a reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice. The proposal would move the Division of Juvenile Justice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to a new department under the Health and Human Services Agency. The Governor’s Budget Summary suggests this reorganization is due to the Division’s focus on improving rehabilitation. The Budget Summary also states, “This change will enable the state to better provide youth offenders with services needed to be successful when they are released.”

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) required the development and implementation of standardized definitions and defined goals for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

AB 2813 (Bloom, Chapter 646, Statutes of 2016) removed certain circumstances under which a probation officer may detain a minor who has been taken into temporary custody, and narrowed the circumstances under which a probation officer may decide to detain a youth who is currently a dependent of the juvenile court, or the subject of a petition to declare him or her a dependent of the juvenile court. Further, AB 2813 required that a probation officer immediately release a minor who is a dependent of the juvenile court, or is the subject of a petition to declare them a dependent of the juvenile court, to the custody of the child welfare system or their current foster parent or other caregiver, unless continued detention is a matter of immediate necessity.

AB 388 (Chesbro, Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014) provided additional clarification on how juvenile courts may consider a child's status as a dependent minor when determining whether to place that child into delinquency, and required CDSS to make additional licensing information and monitoring requirements for child welfare placements, including group homes, available to the public.

AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) authorized the probation department and the CWS department in any county to create a protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/21/19)

Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego (source)

American Academy of Pediatrics

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies

California Youth Connection

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Juvenile Court Judges of California

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/21/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/25/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Eduardo Garcia, Gray

Prepared by: Marisa Shea / HUMAN S. /

6/26/19 16:00:24

**** END ****

1. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-115.pdf ↑

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 465

Author: Eggman (D)

Amended: 5/29/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/10/19

AYES: Hurtado, Beall, Jackson, Pan, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/18/19

AYES: Jackson, Borgeas, Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Jones, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/25/19 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Juveniles: dual status children

SOURCE: Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego

DIGEST:

This bill establishes a number of definitions to be used when tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specified reasons, including but not limited to children who are, or are at risk of, being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected or being exploited, to ensure their safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
3. Permits the juvenile court to order and adjudge to be a ward of the court the following individuals, as specified: a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who has committed a status offense; a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who violates state or federal law; or, a minor under the age of 12 who is alleged to have committed certain violent crimes. (WIC 725(b))
4. Requires the court, in certain circumstances, to order the care, custody, and control of a minor or nonminor adjudged a ward of the court to be under the control of a probation officer, and authorizes the probation officer to place the minor or nonminor in a number of settings, including, as specified and with age restrictions in some cases: the approved home of a relative, or nonrelative extended family member; a foster home, approved resource family home, or a home or facility in accordance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act; a suitable licensed community care facility; a foster family agency, in a suitable certified family home or with a resource family; and a group home or short-term residential therapeutic program. (WIC 727)
5. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services (CWS) agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society, as specified. Further, though, authorizes the probation department and the CWS agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (WIC 241.1)
6. Requires the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified. (WIC 241.2(a))
7. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and juvenile justice system who are within their counties; and, further, requires CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. (WIC 241.2(b))

This bill:

1. States legislative intent to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.
2. Replaces, in one section of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
3. Repeals provisions of current law that require the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified.
4. Defines various terms relating to dual status youth for the purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.
5. Makes technical changes.

Background

Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “AB 465 provides guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.” This bill codifies standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems, as they were defined by a statutorily required working group that was convened by the Judicial Council. “There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both system, this bill seeks to create such definitions in statute as well as common identifiers that the counties can use to track outcomes for this population,” per the author.

Child welfare services. California’s CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of the children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible. In instances where reunification is not possible, it is the state’s goal to provide a permanent placement alternative such as adoption or guardianship, with the second highest placement priority of the CWS system being to unite children with other relatives or nonrelative extended family members.

As of October 1, 2018, there were 59,487 children in California’s CWS system.

Dual status youth. In 2004, California passed AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004), which made it possible for “dual status youth” who are involved in both the CWS and the juvenile justice systems to receive the oversight and benefits of both systems. Prior to passage of AB 129, the law required that cases involving foster youth who were also involved in the juvenile justice system had to be placed into either the child welfare or the justice system.

AB 129 allowed counties to voluntarily adopt formal dual status protocols, through which youth can simultaneously be under the formal jurisdiction of both the dependency and delinquency courts. Per AB 129, those protocols must describe the process for assessing the eligibility for and necessity of dual status youth, the communication between judges in the dependency and delinquency courts, the collection of data for the Judicial Council evaluation, and the adoption of either a “lead court/lead agency” or “on-hold” model.

AB 129 also required Judicial Council to collect and compile data, to evaluate the results of implementing the dual status protocols, and report its finding to the Legislature. The study, which was conducted in 2007, revealed that the counties’ implementation of protocols and experiences varied greatly.

According to the Judicial Council Web site, only 18 of California's 58 counties have elected to develop dual status protocols. Because of local flexibility, dual status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and may or may not be comparable. Additionally, some of the counties that have not opted to adopt dual status protocols are working on independent projects to help dual status youth.

Historically, outcomes for dual status youth have been reported to be poorer than outcomes for their non-system-involved peers or for peers who are involved in only one system. It is thus often believed that dually involved youth require more, and more intensive, supports and services to address their unique needs. A 2016 report from the California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership noted that, “young people who come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems are among the most vulnerable of California’s children. These young people are more likely to be separated from their families, experience frequent placement changes, suffer behavioral health problems, and have poor education outcomes when compared with children not in contact with both systems.”

State Auditor findings on dual status youth. In June 2015, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the Bureau of State Audits, at the request of the author of this bill, to conduct an audit to determine whether counties are addressing the needs of dual status youth. The resulting report was issued in February of 2016.^[1] As noted in the State Auditor’s report, the audit was unable to determine how county programs were performing because the state had not issued guidelines to counties on how to track or identify dual status youth and thus most counties were found to not be assessing the effectiveness of their efforts.

Per the Auditor, “the State has not defined key terms or established outcomes to track related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot monitor the outcomes for this population statewide. Furthermore, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the populations of youth involved in dual status and nondual status counties.” Without consistent definitions, and tracking of attributes and outcomes, it is impossible to reach conclusions about best models and practices, determined the Auditor. For example, the counties all defined recidivism differently, so it was not possible to say which protocols, programs or services might be working to reduce recidivism in these youth.

The Auditor recommended that the Legislature require Judicial Council to work with a variety specified of stakeholders to develop common definitions and outcome measures. The Auditor also recommended that CDSS, which operates the state case management automation system for tracking youth in the child welfare system (CWS/CMS), develop a function in that system to allow staff in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to identify youth involved with both systems and issue guidance on how to use that function and fully track those youth.

AB 1911. AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) implemented many of the State Auditor’s recommendations related to the Judicial Council and CDSS. AB 1911 required CDSS to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that would enable the identification of a dual-status or crossover youth in a county by the county’s child welfare agency and probation department. It also required CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of dual-status youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. According to CDSS, the required functionality is being piloted at this time in CWS/CMS to track dual-status and crossover youth. CDSS further reports that the functionality should be available for all counties use in early June and CDSS has already issued an All-County Letter, No. 17-59, with instructions for the project codes to be utilized.

AB 1911 also required the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that was required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcomes tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Pursuant to these requirements, the Judicial Council convened a working group of representatives from probation, county and state social services, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials. This working group met several times over the course of one year, while also conducting research and consulting various experts on the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In 2017, the Judicial Council released the result of working group’s efforts – a report entitled “Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911).” This report, in compliance with the requirements of AB 1911, presented various recommendations relating to codifying terms relating to dual status youth and counties collection of data on that population. (For an enumerated list of these recommendations, see the Senate Human Services Committee’s analysis of this bill.)

This bill codifies the report’s recommendations related to statutory terminology and the adoption and codification of certain terminology.

Governor’s propose reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice. In his proposed 2019-20 Budget, Governor Newsom included a reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice. The proposal would move the Division of Juvenile Justice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to a new department under the Health and Human Services Agency. The Governor’s Budget Summary suggests this reorganization is due to the Division’s focus on improving rehabilitation. The Budget Summary also states, “This change will enable the state to better provide youth offenders with services needed to be successful when they are released.”

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) required the development and implementation of standardized definitions and defined goals for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

AB 2813 (Bloom, Chapter 646, Statutes of 2016) removed certain circumstances under which a probation officer may detain a minor who has been taken into temporary custody, and narrowed the circumstances under which a probation officer may decide to detain a youth who is currently a dependent of the juvenile court, or the subject of a petition to declare him or her a dependent of the juvenile court. Further, AB 2813 required that a probation officer immediately release a minor who is a dependent of the juvenile court, or is the subject of a petition to declare them a dependent of the juvenile court, to the custody of the child welfare system or their current foster parent or other caregiver, unless continued detention is a matter of immediate necessity.

AB 388 (Chesbro, Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014) provided additional clarification on how juvenile courts may consider a child's status as a dependent minor when determining whether to place that child into delinquency, and required CDSS to make additional licensing information and monitoring requirements for child welfare placements, including group homes, available to the public.

AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) authorized the probation department and the CWS department in any county to create a protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/21/19)

Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego (source)

American Academy of Pediatrics

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies

California Youth Connection

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Juvenile Court Judges of California

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/21/19)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 4/25/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Diep, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Eduardo Garcia, Gray

Prepared by: Marisa Shea / HUMAN S. /

6/21/19 11:43:06

**** END ****

1. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-115.pdf ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 465 (Author:Eggman)

Version: May 29, 2019

Hearing Date: June 18, 2019

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

JTConsultant:

SUBJECT

Juveniles: dual status children

DIGEST

This bill codifies certain definitions the Judicial Council of California was statutorily required to develop to assist in tracking “dual-status youth” who are involved in both the juvenile dependency and delinquency systems.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The juvenile dependency and delinquency systems are distinct in that juvenile dependency deals with abused and neglected children, whereas juvenile delinquency deals with violations of law by a minor. However, there is considerable overlap with the children that are involved in both systems. Research consistently confirms that children who are abused and maltreated are much more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior than the general population.

The link between dependency and delinquency has been of interest to state policymakers for over a decade. Recognizing the needs of this particular population, the Legislature passed AB 129 (Cohn, Ch. 468, Stats. of 2004), which gave counties the discretion to exercise either dual or exclusive jurisdiction over crossover youths. However, despite subsequent legislative efforts, research, and studies, crossover youth in California remain largely unidentified and underserviced. In 2016, AB 1911 (Eggman, Ch. 637, Stats. 2016), required, among other things, that the Judicial Council convene stakeholders to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes to improve both identification of this population of youth and service delivery.

This bill, which is sponsored by the Children’s Advocacy Institute, would codify those definitions. The bill is supported by the Judicial Council, judges, various organizations that represent youth advocates, and pediatricians. The bill has no known opposition.

The bill passed the Senate Human Services Committee by a vote of 5-0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300.)^[1]
2. Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency jurisdiction, which renders the child a ward. (§§ 601 & 602.)
3. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society. Authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual-status protocol that would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (§ 241.1.) 
4. Required the Judicial Council, on or before January 31, 2017, to convene a group of specified stakeholders working with dependents and wards to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes that will improve both identification of this population of youth and service delivery. (§ 241.2 (a).)
5. Required the Department of Social Services (DSS), on or before January 1, 2019, to implement a function within the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System to enable county agencies to identify and track youth in their counties involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice system. (§ 241.2 (b).)

This bill:

1. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” and “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.
2. Replaces, in section 241.1, the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
3. Repeals obsolete provisions.
4. For purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, provides the following definitions:
   1. “Child welfare history” means any prior referral that was actively investigated and found to be substantiated, unfounded, or inconclusive, and any previously open child welfare case.
   2. “Child welfare crossover youth” means a youth whose child welfare case has been terminated in favor of a juvenile justice finding and wardship disposition.
   3. “Child welfare redetention” means a child’s removal from a parent following reunification and family maintenance, prior to case dismissal.
   4. “Child welfare reentry” means a child’s return to foster care after a child welfare case dismissal.
   5. “Couch surfing” means moving frequently between temporary living arrangements with local households, including, but not limited to, households of extended family, friends, friends’ parents, and acquaintances, while lacking a permanent or stable home.
   6. “Diversion” means suspension of any formal juvenile justice proceedings and either a dismissal of the petition or an informal agreement of participation of the youth and family in services designed to avoid system penetration.
   7. “Dual status youth” means a youth simultaneously declared a dependent and ward of the juvenile court.
   8. “Dually identified youth” means a youth with historical contact in one system and current contact with the other. For purposes of this paragraph, “contact” is used broadly, meaning any level of involvement with the system, including child welfare investigations or juvenile justice referrals.
   9. “Dually involved youth” means a youth who is currently a child welfare or juvenile justice youth and has formal or informal action, pending or active, through child welfare, probation, or the respective court.
   10. “Homeless” means couch surfing or sleeping on the street or in a vehicle, a shelter, or other temporary accommodations without a permanent residence to which a person can return.
   11. “Informal child welfare services” means any referrals to community-based services provided to families who come to the attention of child welfare services, but do not meet statutory criteria for formal intervention.
   12. “Informal probation” means a status of probation when a youth has been diverted from formal wardship status.
   13. “Juvenile justice crossover youth” means a youth whose juvenile justice case has been terminated in favor of a child welfare finding.
   14. “Missing from care” means an instance when a youth’s whereabouts are unknown to the caregiver, child welfare agency, or probation department after allowing a reasonable amount of time for the youth to return and taking into account the youth’s age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition. Youth who are missing from care include youth who have been abducted by a nonfamily member, have been wrongfully taken or detained by a person related to them, have wandered away from a safe environment and become lost, have run away from a home, foster home, or state facility, or are otherwise missing from care for any other reason. There may be instances in which a youth runs away, but their whereabouts are known to the caregiver, child welfare agency, or probation department, including, but not limited to, an instance in which the youth left an approved placement and is with a friend or family member and refuses to return to their placement, and in these instances, the youth is to be considered missing from care.
   15. “Permanency” means that a child achieves reunification with a parent, is appointed a legal guardian, is placed with a fit and willing relative, is adopted, or has a customary tribal adoption ordered.
   16. “Recidivism” means any criminal or juvenile justice dispositions made within three years of a previous juvenile justice disposition.
   17. “Voluntary child welfare services” means services provided to families in lieu of filing a petition or subsequent to dismissal of a petition already filed, with the consent of the family.

COMMENTS

1. Dual status youth and the need for additional data

Together, the dependency and delinquency systems make up California’s juvenile justice system. The Welfare & Institutions Code governs the juvenile justice system, and provides for the treatment and care of dependent children, as well as the punishment and rehabilitation of delinquent children. While components of the same system, these two entities are separate in many respects. They are often physically separate, and there are separate judges, separate agencies, and separate attorneys to help children navigate through these processes. Research shows that the outcomes for youth who crossover from dependency to delinquency are dismal. Crossover youth demonstrate a higher incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, and educational difficulties compared to minors who are involved in only one system. One Los Angeles-based study found that over 83 percent of crossover youth had mental health or substance abuse problems and over 45 percent were truant. Additionally, crossover youth are more likely to experience substantial difficulty transitioning to adulthood: they are more likely to be on public welfare, two to three times more likely to access at least two or three government service systems, and are less likely to be consistently employed within a few years of emancipation.^[2]

Before 2005, all California counties exercised “exclusive jurisdiction” over these youth, meaning a child could only receive services from either the dependency or delinquency system. In cases where the court terminated dependency jurisdiction after the child violated the law, the child would lose welfare benefits, such as drug rehabilitation services, mental health counseling, and court-appointed parental supervision, in exchange for probation.^[3]

Recognizing the needs of this particular population, the Legislature passed AB 129 (Cohn, Ch. 468, Stats. 2004), which gave counties the discretion to exercise either dual or exclusive jurisdiction over crossover youths. According to the Judicial Council, only 18 of California’s 58 counties have elected to develop these protocols, but those counties are relatively large, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. As a result, most youth involved with both the dependency and delinquency systems in California today live in dual-status jurisdictions.^[4] Because of local flexibility, dual-status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and are not necessarily comparable.

In 2015, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the State Auditor to evaluate how counties are serving crossover youth. The State Auditor found it could generally not determine how county programs were performing because the state had not issued guidelines to the counties on how to track or even identify these youth, and thus, it was “difficult to determine the success of county efforts.”^[5]

Based on recommendations in the State Auditor’s report, the Legislature passed AB 1911 (Eggman, Ch. 637, Stats. 2016), which required DSS to implement a function within the Child Welfare Services/ Case Management System that would enable county agencies to identify and track youth in their counties in both the child welfare and juvenile justice system. That bill further required the Judicial Council to convene stakeholders to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes to improve both identification of, and service delivery to, this vulnerable population of youth.

2. Codifies Judicial Council’s recommended definitions of terms used to identify and gather information on dual-status youth

Under AB 1911, the Judicial Council was tasked with, among other things, developing recommendations for “standardized definitions for terms related to the populations of youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.” To meet this requirement, the Judicial Council convened a working group that included stakeholders from probation, social services at the state and county level, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials.^[6]

The group’s recommendations included modifying the current statutory terminology of “dependency” and “delinquency” in all relevant codes that address child welfare and juvenile justice, specifically:

• replace “dependency” with “child welfare” and “delinquency” with “juvenile justice”; and
• replace “dependent” with “child welfare youth” and “delinquent” with “juvenile justice youth.”

To this end, this bill expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” and “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.

The group also made the following recommendations:

• The Legislature should adopt and codify terms necessary for identifying specific categories of youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
• The Legislature should adopt and codify additional terms necessary for tracking outcomes of identified youth.
• Additional terms and definitions should be made available to state and county agencies for use in policy and procedure to help (1) differentiate the meaning of terms that arise in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and (2) develop a lexicon for specialized efforts on behalf of this population of youth.^[7]

This bill incorporates these recommended identifying terms and terms necessary for tracking outcomes. According to the author:

[This bill] will provide guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems. The working group, convened by the judicial council, has created standardized definitions for these terms as well as common identifiers the counties can use to track outcomes for this population.

3. Arguments in support

This bill is sponsored by the Children’s Advocacy Institute, which argues:

The simplicity of this bill should not belie its importance. California is not alone in its challenges to collect and report data on this population of youth and will be among the first in the nation to improve outcomes for many of the most traumatized and high-need youth within our public systems … it is estimated that as many as 50% of youth referred to the juvenile court on a juvenile justice matter have had involvement with the child welfare system. Children who touch both systems are among the most vulnerable youth who also tend to experience the poorest outcomes in childhood and young adulthood.

John Burton Advocates for Youth adds that “[w]ith the proposal outlined in AB 465, California can begin streamlining data collection on dual-status children and better measure, and inform its efforts on programming for them.” And Juvenile Court Judges of California, a section of the California Judges Association, argues that this bill “is a significant start” that will hopefully create a common lexicon, data, and outcome tracking of dual-status youths throughout California. Finally, the Judicial Council states that “AB 465 will serve as the first major step toward addressing the issues confronted by children who are in the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.”

SUPPORT

Children’s Advocacy Institute (Sponsor)

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California State PTA

California Youth Connection
John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Juvenile Court Judges of California (California Judges Association)

OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known

Prior Legislation: See Comment 1.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 76, Noes 0)

Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 8, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

**************

1. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated. ↑

2. Wylie, Closing the Crossover Gap: Amending Fostering Connections to Provide Independent Living Services for Foster Youth Who Crossover to the Justice System (2014) 52 Fam. Ct. Rev. 298, 300. ↑

3. Jessica Springer, Orange County’s Answer to the Dual Jurisdictional Dilemma (2014) 56 Orange County Lawyer 30. ↑

4. Judicial Council, Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911): 2017 Report to the Legislature, p. 4. ↑

5. California State Auditor, Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Report 2015-115 (Feb. 2016) p. 2. ↑

6. Judicial Council, Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911): 2017 Report to the Legislature, p. 1. ↑

7. Id. at 10. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Hurtado, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Subject: Juveniles: dual status children

SUMMARY

This bill establishes a number of definitions to be used when tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Establishes a system of juvenile dependency for children for specified reasons, including but not limited to children who are, or are at risk of, being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected or being exploited, to ensure their safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being, as specified. (WIC 300 et seq.)
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, neglected or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
3. Permits the juvenile court to order and adjudge to be a ward of the court the following individuals, as specified: a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who has committed a status offense; a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who violates state or federal law; or, a minor under the age of 12 who is alleged to have committed certain violent crimes. (WIC 725(b))
4. Requires the court, in certain circumstances, to order the care, custody, and control of a minor or nonminor adjudged a ward of the court to be under the control of a probation officer, and authorizes the probation officer to place the minor or nonminor in a number of settings, including, as specified and with age restrictions in some cases: the approved home of a relative, or nonrelative extended family member; a foster home, approved resource family home, or a home or facility in accordance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act; a suitable licensed community care facility; a foster family agency, in a suitable certified family home or with a resource family; and a group home or short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). (WIC 727)
5. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society, as specified. Further, though, authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (WIC 241.1)
6. Requires the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified. (WIC 241.2(a))
7. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and juvenile justice system who are within their counties and, further, requires CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. (WIC 241.2(b))

This Bill:

1. States legislative intent to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.
2. Replaces, in one section of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
3. Repeals provisions of current law that require the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified.
4. Defines the following terms for the purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system:
   1. “Child welfare history” means any prior referral that was actively investigated and found to be substantiated, unfounded, or inconclusive, and any previously open child welfare care;
   2. “Child welfare crossover youth” means a youth whose child welfare case has been terminated in favor of a juvenile justice finding and wardship disposition;
   3. “Child welfare redetention” means a child’s removal from a parent following reunification and family maintenance, prior to case dismissal;
   4. “Child welfare reentry” means a child’s return to foster care after a child welfare case dismissal;
   5. “Couch surfing” means moving frequently between temporary living arrangements with local households, including, but not limited to, households of extended family, friends, friends’ parents, and acquaintances, while lacking a permanent or stable home;
   6. “Diversion” means suspension of any formal juvenile justice proceedings and either a dismissal of the petition or an informal agreement of participation of the youth and family in services designed to avoid system penetration;
   7. “Dual status youth” means a youth simultaneously declared a dependent and ward of the juvenile court;
   8. “Dually identified youth” means a youth with historical contact in one system and current contact with the other, and further states that “contact” is used broadly, meaning any level of involvement with the system, including child welfare investigations or juvenile justice referrals;
   9. “Dually identified youth” means a youth who is currently a child welfare or juvenile justice youth and has formal or informal action, pending or active, through child welfare, probation, or the respective court;
   10. “Homeless” means couch surfing or sleeping on the street or in a vehicle, a shelter, or other temporary accommodations without a permanent residence to which a person can return;
   11. “Informal child welfare services” means any referrals to community-based services provided to families who come to the attention of child welfare services, but do not meet statutory criteria for formal intervention;
   12. “Informal probation” means a status of probation when a youth has been diverted from formal wardship status;
   13. “Juvenile justice crossover youth” means a youth whose juvenile justice case has been terminated in favor of a child welfare finding;
   14. “Missing from care” means an instance when a youth’s whereabouts are unknown to the caregiver, child welfare agency, or probation department after allowing a reasonable amount of time for the youth to return and taking into account the youth’s age, intelligence, mental functioning, and physical condition. Youth who are missing from care include youth who have been abducted by a nonfamily member, have been wrongfully taken or detained by a person related to them, have wandered away from a safe environment and become lost, have run away from a home, foster home, or state facility, or are otherwise missing from care for any other reason. There may be instances in which a youth runs away but their whereabouts are known to the caregiver, child welfare agency, or probation department, including, but not limited to an instance in which the youth left an approved placement and is with a friend or family member and refuses to return to their placement and in these instances, the youth is to be considered missing from care.
   15. “Permanency” means that a child achieves reunification with a parent, is appointed a legal guardian, is placed with a fit and willing relative, is adopted, or has a customary tribal adoption ordered;
   16. “Recidivism” means any criminal or juvenile justice dispositions made within three years of a previous juvenile justice disposition; and
   17. “Voluntary child welfare services” means services provided to families in lieu of filing a petition or subsequent to dismissal of a petition already filed, with the consent of the family.
5. Makes technical changes.

FISCAL IMPACT

This bill was keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “AB 465 provides guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.” This bill codifies standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems, as they were defined by a statutorily required working group that was convened by the Judicial Council. “There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both system, this bill seeks to create such definitions in statute as well as common identifiers that the counties can use to track outcomes for this population,” per the author.

Child Welfare Services

California’s child welfare services (CWS) system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. Abused and neglected children who have been removed from their homes fall under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court. The dependency court holds legal jurisdiction over the child, while the child is served by the CWS system social worker.

This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of the children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. The CWS system provides multiple opportunities for the custody of the child, or the child’s placement outside of the home, to be evaluated, reviewed and determined by the judicial system, in consultation with the child’s social worker to help provide the best possible services to the child. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible. In instances where reunification is not possible, it is the state’s goal to provide a permanent placement alternative such as adoption or guardianship, with the second highest placement priority of the CWS system being to unite children with other relatives or nonrelative extended family members.

As of July 1, 2018 there were an estimated 51,969 children in California’s child welfare system.

Dual Status Youth

In 2004, California passed AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004), which made it possible for “dual status youth” who are involved in both the child welfare services and the juvenile justice systems to receive the oversight and benefits of both systems. Prior to passage of AB 129, the law required that cases involving foster youth who were also involved in the juvenile justice system had to be placed into either the child welfare or the justice system.

AB 129 allowed counties to voluntarily adopt formal dual status protocols, through which youth can simultaneously be under the formal jurisdiction of both the dependency and delinquency courts. Per AB 129, those protocols must describe the process for assessing the eligibility for and necessity of dual status youth, the communication between judges in the dependency and delinquency courts, the collection of data for the Judicial Council evaluation, and the adoption of either a “lead court/lead agency” or “on-hold” model.

AB 129 also required Judicial Council to collect and compile data, to evaluate the results of implementing the dual status protocols, and report its finding to the Legislature. The study, which was conducted in 2007, revealed that the counties’ implementation of protocols and experiences varied greatly.

According to the Judicial Council website, only 18 of California's 58 counties have elected to develop dual status protocols. Because of local flexibility, dual status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and may or may not be comparable. Additionally, some of the counties that have not opted to adopt dual status protocols are working on independent projects to help dual status youth.

Historically, outcomes for dual status youth have been reported to be poorer than outcomes for their non-system-involved peers or for peers who are involved in only one system. It is thus often believed that dually involved youth require more, and more intensive, supports and services to address their unique needs. A 2016 report from the California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership noted that, “young people who come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems are among the most vulnerable of California’s children. These young people are more likely to be separated from their families, experience frequent placement changes, suffer behavioral health problems, and have poor education outcomes when compared with children not in contact with both systems.”

State Auditor Findings on Dual Status Youth

In June 2015, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed the Bureau of State Audits, at the request of the author of this bill, to conduct an audit to determine whether counties are addressing the needs of dual status youth. The resulting report was issued in February of 2016.^[1] As noted in the State Auditor’s report, the audit was unable to determine how county programs were performing because the state had not issued guidelines to counties on how to track or identify dual status youth and thus most counties were found to not be assessing the effectiveness of their efforts.

Per the auditor, “the State has not defined key terms or established outcomes to track related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot monitor the outcomes for this population statewide. Furthermore, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the populations of youth involved in dual status and nondual status counties.” Without consistent definitions, and tracking of attributes and outcomes, it is impossible to reach conclusions about best models and practices, determined the Auditor. For example, the counties all defined recidivism differently, so it was not possible to say which protocols, programs or services might be working to reduce recidivism in these youth.

The Auditor recommended that the Legislature require Judicial Council to work with a variety specified of stakeholders to develop common definitions and outcome measures. The Auditor also recommended that CDSS, which operates the state case management automation system for tracking youth in the child welfare system (CWS/CMS), develop a function in that system to allow staff in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to identify youth involved with both systems and issue guidance on how to use that function and fully track those youth.

Assembly Bill 1911

AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) implemented many of the State Auditor’s recommendations related to the Judicial Council and CDSS. AB 1911 required CDSS to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that would enable the identification of a dual-status or crossover youth in a county by the county’s child welfare agency and probation department. It also required CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of dual-status youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. According to CDSS, the required functionality is being piloted at this time in CWS/CMS to track dual-status and crossover youth. CDSS further reports that the functionality should be available for all counties use in early June and CDSS has already issued an All-County Letter, No. 17-59, with instructions for the project codes to be utilized.

AB 1911 also required the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that was required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcomes tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Pursuant to these requirements, the Judicial Council convened a working group of representatives from probation, county and state social services, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials. This working group met several times over the course of one year, while also conducting research and consulting various experts on the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In 2017, the Judicial Council released the result of working group’s efforts – a report entitled “Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911).” This report, in compliance with the requirements of AB 1911, presented the following recommendations:

• The Legislature should modify the current statutory terminology of “dependency” and “delinquency” in all relevant codes that address child welfare and juvenile justice youth, by replacing “dependency” with “child welfare” and “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
• The Legislature should adopt and codify terms necessary for identifying specific categories of youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, such as “dually involved youth,” “dual-status youth,” and “child welfare crossover youth,” among others.
• The Legislature should adopt and codify terms necessary for tracking outcomes of identified youth.
• Additional terms and definitions should be made available to state and county agencies for use in policy and procedure to help differentiate the meaning of terms that arise in both systems and develop a lexicon for specialized efforts on behalf of this population of youth.
• Counties should use a unique identifier to reconcile data across systems, with the identifier generated through a matching process, which should initially be done through an annual records reconciliation audit.
• The Legislature should further explore costs and logistics related to the creation of a system that would allow for real-time tracking for case management of dual status youth.
• Changes to the currently required data collection on this population, so that more specific and usable data points are captured, as well as the addition of other outcomes related to substance abuse, placement stability, extended foster care participation, and commercial sexual exploitation.
• Baselines for collected data should be set at the county level as a result of two to three years of statewide data collection and outcome analysis regarding this population, because there is currently no baseline data that exists at either the nationwide or statewide level. Additionally, collected demographic data should be expanded to include race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

This bill would codify the report’s recommendations related to statutory terminology and the adoption and codification of certain terminology.

Governor’s Propose Reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice

In his proposed 2019-20 budget, Governor Newsom included a reorganization of the Division of Juvenile Justice. The proposal would move the Division of Juvenile Justice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to a new department under the Health and Human Services Agency. The Governor’s Budget Summary suggests this reorganization is due to the Division’s focus on improving rehabilitation. The Budget Summary also states, “this change will enable the state to better provide youth offenders with services needed to be successful when they are released.”

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 1911 (Eggman, Chapter 637, Statutes 2016) required the development and implementation of standardized definitions and defined goals for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

AB 2813 (Bloom, Chapter 646, Statutes of 2016) removed certain circumstances under which a probation officer may detain a minor who has been taken into temporary custody, and narrowed the circumstances under which a probation officer may decide to detain a youth who is currently a dependent of the juvenile court, or the subject of a petition to declare him or her a dependent of the juvenile court. Further, AB 2813 required that a probation officer immediately release a minor who is a dependent of the juvenile court, or is the subject of a petition to declare them a dependent of the juvenile court, to the custody of the child welfare system or their current foster parent or other caregiver, unless continued detention is a matter of immediate necessity.

AB 388 (Chesbro, Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014) provided additional clarification on how juvenile courts may consider a child's status as a dependent minor when determining whether to place that child into delinquency, and required CDSS to make additional licensing information and monitoring requirements for child welfare placements, including group homes, available to the public.

AB 129 (Cohn, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004) authorized the probation department and the child welfare services department in any county to create a protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court.

COMMENTS

This bill has been dual referred, should it pass out of this Committee it will referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego (sponsor)

American Academy of Pediatrics

Ca Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Youth Connection (CYC)

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Juvenile Court Judges of California

Oppose:

None received

-- END --

1. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2015-115.pdf ↑

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Eloise Gómez Reyes, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 465 (

Author:Eggman) – As Introduced Ver:February 11, 2019

SUBJECT: Juveniles: dual status children

SUMMARY: Establishes a number of definitions to be used when tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Specifically, this bill:

1. States Legislative intent to enact legislation that would replace the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.
2. Replaces, in one section of current law, the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice.”
3. Repeals provisions of current law that require the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified.
4. Defines the following terms for purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system:
   1. “AWOL” to mean an instance when a child absconds from a court-ordered placement without permission, resulting in the issuance of a protective custody warrant;
   2. “Child welfare history” to mean any prior referral that was actively investigated, as specified, and any previously open child welfare case;
   3. “Child welfare crossover youth” to mean a youth whose child welfare case has been terminated in favor of a juvenile justice finding and wardship disposition;
   4. “Child welfare re-detention” to mean a child’s removal from a parent following reunification and family maintenance, prior to case dismissal;
   5. “Child welfare re-entry” to mean a child’s return to foster care after a child welfare case dismissal;
   6. “Couch surfing” to mean moving frequently between temporary living arrangements with local households, as specified, while lacking a permanent or stable home;
   7. “Diversion” to mean suspension of any formal juvenile justice proceedings and either a dismissal of the petition or an informal agreement of participation of the youth and family in services designed to avoid system penetration;
   8. “Dual status youth” to mean a youth simultaneously declared a dependent and a ward of the court;
   9. “Dually identified youth” to mean a youth with previous contact in one system and current contact with the other, as specified;
   10. Defines “dually involved youth” to mean a youth who is currently a child welfare or juvenile justice youth and has formal or informal action, pending or active, through child welfare, probation, or the respective court;
   11. Defines “homeless” to mean couch surfing or sleeping on the street or in a vehicle, a shelter, or other temporary accommodations without a permanent residence to which a person can return;
   12. Defines “informal child welfare services” to mean any referrals to community-based services provided to families who come to the attention of child welfare services, but do not meet statutory criteria for formal intervention;
   13. Defines “informal probation” to mean a status of probation when a youth has been diverted from formal wardship status;
   14. Defines “juvenile justice crossover youth” to mean a youth whose juvenile justice case has been terminated in favor of a child welfare finding;
   15. Defines “permanency” to mean that a child achieves reunification with a parent, legal guardianship, adoption, or customary adoption for tribal youth;
   16. Defines “recidivism” to mean any criminal or juvenile justice dispositions made within three years of a previous juvenile justice disposition;
   17. Defines “runaway” to mean leaving home without permission from the parents, probation department, or child welfare department; and,
   18. Defines “voluntary services” to mean services provided to families in lieu of filing a petition or subsequent to dismissal of a petition already filed, with the consent of the family.
5. Makes technical changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits the juvenile court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court for specified reasons, including, but not limited to, if a child has suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm, emotional damage, or sexual abuse, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section [WIC] Section 300)]
2. Permits the juvenile court to order and adjudge to be a ward of the court the following individuals, as specified: a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who has committed a status offense; a minor between the ages of 12 and 17 who violates state or federal law; or, a minor under the age of 12 who is alleged to have committed certain violent crimes. (WIC 725 (b))
3. Requires the court, in certain circumstances, to order the care, custody, and control of a minor or nonminor adjudged a ward of the court to be under the control of a probation officer, and authorizes the probation officer to place the minor or nonminor in a number of settings, including, as specified and with age restrictions in some cases: the approved home relative or of a nonrelative, extended family member; a foster home, approved resource family home, or a home or facility in accordance with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act; a suitable licensed community care facility; a foster family agency, in a suitable certified family home or with a resource family; and a group home or short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). (WIC 727)
4. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society, as specified. Further, though, authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual status protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (WIC 241.1)
5. Requires the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that is required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, as specified. (WIC 241.2 (a))
6. Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and juvenile justice system who are within their counties and, further, requires CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. (WIC 241.2 (b))

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill was keyed nonfiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Dual status youth: Some youth, for various reasons, become involved with both the child welfare services system and the juvenile justice system. This can be through: being simultaneously adjudicated a dependent and a ward of the court; being dually involved with both systems, even if not being simultaneously adjudicated as both a dependent and a ward; or “crossing over” from one system to the other.

Outcomes for these youth can be poorer than outcomes for their non-system-involved peers or for peers who are involved in only one system. As such, dually involved youth often require more, and more intensive, supports and services to address their needs. A 2016 report from the California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership observed that, “Young people who come into contact with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems are among the most vulnerable of California’s children. These young people are more likely to be separated from their families, experience frequent placement changes, suffer behavioral health problems, and have poor educational outcomes when compared with children not in contact with both systems.”

Historically, a youth in California could not typically be adjudged both a dependent of the court and a ward of the court at the same time – the youth either entered into, and received services from, the child welfare service system or did so through the juvenile justice system. However, AB 129 (Cohn), Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004, authorized the probation department and the child welfare services department in any county to create a protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. There are currently 18 counties with dual jurisdiction protocols, available on the Judicial Council website. The Judicial Council was required to collect data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of dual status protocols, but this requirement only extended through the first two years of the bill’s implementation, beginning in 2005.

The State Auditor released an audit in February of 2016 entitled, “Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems.” This audit looked at case files from three dual status counties (i.e., counties with protocols) and three nondual status counties (where the case files of crossover youth were examined). The State Auditor observed that:

“This report concludes that, absent a requirement to do so, most of the counties we visited have not monitored outcomes to assess the effectiveness of their efforts with dually involved youth…. While state law does not require state agencies to provide guidance or counties to track such information, best practice models recommend collecting data and tracking outcomes. To better address the needs of dually involved youth, various national best practices suggest that agencies start by designing and implementing uniform data collection and reporting systems, identifying their population of dually involved youth, and then beginning to track certain attributes and outcomes such as information related to youths’ delinquent activities, placements, and history of maltreatment. In California, state agencies have provided the counties with only limited guidance related to tracking dually involved youth. Specifically, the State has not defined key terms or established outcomes to track related to dually involved youth, thus it cannot monitor the outcomes for this population statewide.”

Some of the specific recommendations made by the State Auditor included:

• “To ensure that county CWS and probation agencies are able to identify their populations of dually involved youth, the Legislature should require Social Services to do the following:
  • Implement a function within the statewide case management system that will enable county CWS and probation agencies to identify dually involved youth.
  • Issue guidance to the counties on how to use the statewide case management system to track joint assessment hearing information completely and consistently for these youth.”
• “To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to do the following:
  • Develop a common identifier counties can use to reconcile data across CWS and probation data systems statewide.
  • Develop standardized definitions for terms related to the populations of youth involved in both the CWS and probation systems, such as dually involved, crossover, and dual status youth.
  • Identify and define outcomes for counties to track for dually involved youth, such as outcomes related to recidivism and education.
  • Establish baselines and goals for those outcomes.”

AB 1911 (Eggman), Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016, enacted a number to the State Auditor’s recommendations.

AB 1911: AB 1911 required the Judicial Council to convene a stakeholder committee that was required to, by January 1, 2018, develop and report recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

It also required CDSS to, by January 1, 2019, implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and juvenile justice system who are within their counties, and required CDSS to issue instructions to all counties on how to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. CDSS reports that the functionality is being piloted at this time in CWS/CMS to track dual-status youth and crossover youth, and should be live for all counties to use in early June.  Prior to implementation into CWS/CMS, CDSS issued All-County Letter No. 17-59, with instructions for the special project codes to be utilized. 

Pursuant to the requirements of AB 1911, the Judicial Council convened a working group of representatives from probation, county and state social services, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials. This working group met several times over the period of one year and conducted research and consulted various experts. In 2017, the Judicial Council released a report entitled “Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911),” which, in compliance with the requirements of AB 1911, contained a number of recommendations. These are summarized below:

• Terms and definitions: The working group recommended modifying language in current statute such that “dependency” and “dependent” are replaced with “child welfare” and “child welfare youth,” respectively, and “delinquency” and “delinquent” replaced with “juvenile justice” and “juvenile justice youth.” The working group also recommended adopting and codifying a range of terms, defined in the report, related to specific categories of youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, tracking outcomes of identified youth, and other factors related to the experiences of dually involved youth and the systems with which they are involved.
• Common identifier: The working group recommended that a unique identifier be generated to assist counties in reconciling data across systems, and further recommended that the matching process initially be done through an annual records reconciliation audit. The working group also recommended that the Legislature further explore costs and logistics associated with creating a master repository that could allow for transactional or real-time tracking for case management of youth involved in both systems.
• Outcomes to track: The working group suggested starting by tracking those outcomes that can currently be measured using existing data in domains of education, recidivism and other juvenile justice events, child welfare re-entry and re-detention, placement stability, and participation in extended foster care. The working group also provided additional, more robust outcomes that could be tracked in the longer term using new methods of data collection. In addition to the topics that AB 1911 required recommendations on (recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment, and education), the working group also recommended tracking outcomes related to substance abuse, placement stability, extended foster care participation, and commercial sexual exploitation.
• Baselines and goals: The working group stated that, “Because there is no baseline data that currently exists nationwide or statewide in any state for this population, it is recommended that baselines be set at the county level as a result of two to three years of statewide data collection and outcome analysis regarding this population of youth. It is further recommended that in addition to the demographic data currently collected (name, date of birth) the following demographic data be collected: race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

Need for this bill: This bill codifies the identifying terms and terms necessary for tracking outcomes that are recommended in the Judicial Council’s “Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911)” report (additionally, the bill codifies a definition of “couch-surfing”). This bill also states Legislative intent to, per the report’s recommendation, replace the term “delinquency” with “juvenile justice” in all statutes that address child welfare and juvenile justice.

According to the author, “[This bill] will provide guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems. The working group, convened by the judicial council, has created standardized definitions for these terms as well as common identifiers the counties can use to track outcomes for this population.”

Double referral: This bill passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 19, 2019, with a 12-0 vote.

PRIOR LEGISLATION:

AB 1911 (Eggman), Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016, required the development and implementation of standardized definitions and defined goals for youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

AB 2813 (Bloom), Chapter 646, Statutes of 2016, removed certain circumstances under which a probation officer may detain a minor who has been taken into temporary custody, and narrowed the circumstances under which a probation officer may decide to detain a youth who is currently a dependent of the juvenile court, or the subject of a petition to declare him or her a dependent of the juvenile court. Further, AB 2813 required that a probation officer immediately release a minor who is a dependent of the juvenile court, or is the subject of a petition to declare them a dependent of the juvenile court, to the custody of the child welfare system or their current foster parent or other caregiver, unless continued detention is a matter of immediate necessity.

AB 388 (Chesbro), Chapter 760, Statutes of 2014, provided additional clarification on how juvenile courts may consider a child's status as a dependent minor when determining whether to place that child into delinquency, and required CDSS to make additional licensing information and monitoring requirements for child welfare placements, including group homes, available to the public.

AB 129 (Cohn), Chapter 468, Statutes of 2004, authorized the probation department and the child welfare services department in any county to create a protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for Public Interest Law/Children's Advocacy Institute/University of San Diego (Sponsor)
John Burton Advocates for Youth (Sponsor)

Juvenile Court Judges of California/California Judges Association

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Daphne Hunt / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 465

Author:(Eggman) – As Introduced Ver:February 11, 2019

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: DUAL-STATUS YOUTH: DEFINITIONS

KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO HELP IDENTIFY AND TRACK OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH INVOLVED IN BOTH THE CHILD WELFARE AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS, KNOWN AS “DUAL-STATUS YOUTH,” SHOULD STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS RECOMMENDED BY A STATUTORILY REQUIRED JUDICIAL COUNCIL WORKING GROUP BE IMPLEMENTED?

SYNOPSIS

There is general agreement that youth involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system have greater challenges to overcome. Youth involved with both systems require greater support and services to address underlying abuse or neglect. Over the years, various legislation, research, and studies have attempted to address the needs of these youth. Yet, despite this authority, youth in California remain largely unidentified and underserviced. To further address these challenges and better service the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, the California Legislature required the Judicial Council to convene a working group of stakeholders to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes to improve identification for tracking outcomes of this vulnerable population of youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, known as “dual-status youth.”

As a result, the Judicial Council formed the Data Standards Working Group that included stakeholders from probation, social services at the state and county level, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials, and developed common data to collect, track, and evaluate outcomes for these youth and reported their work group recommendations to the Legislature in 2017. This bill implements some of the recommendations of the working group by defining various terms, including, among others, “dual-status youth” and “child welfare reentry,” for purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. Because there are currently no statewide, standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved with both systems, and no common identifiers for tracking outcomes, counties are lacking the crucial information needed to monitor outcomes for this vulnerable population of young people. This bill is sponsored by the Children's Advocacy Institute and supported by the juvenile court judges and the John Burton Advocates for Youth. It has no opposition.

SUMMARY: Implements standardized definitions and common identifiers for tracking youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, known as “dual-status youth.” Specifically, this bill:

1. For purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, defines the following terms:
   1. “AWOL” means an instance when a child absconds from a court-ordered placement without permission, resulting in the issuance of a protective custody warrant.
   2. “Child welfare history” means any prior referral that was actively investigated and found to be substantiated, unfounded, or inconclusive, and any previously open child welfare case.
   3. “Child welfare crossover youth” means a youth whose child welfare case has been terminated in favor of a juvenile justice finding and wardship disposition.
   4. “Child welfare redetention” means a child’s removal from a parent following reunification and family maintenance, prior to case dismissal.
   5. “Child welfare reentry” means a child’s return to foster care after a child welfare case dismissal.
   6. “Couch surfing” means moving frequently between temporary living arrangements with local households, including, but not limited to, households of extended family, friends, friends’ parents, and acquaintances, while lacking a permanent or stable home.
   7. “Diversion” means suspension of any formal juvenile justice proceedings and either a dismissal of the petition or an informal agreement of participation of the youth and family in services designed to avoid system penetration.
   8. “Dual-status youth” means a youth simultaneously declared a dependent and ward of the juvenile court.
   9. “Dually identified youth” means a youth with historical contact in one system and current contact with the other. “Contact” is used broadly, meaning any level of involvement with the system, including child welfare investigations or juvenile justice referrals.
   10. “Dually involved youth” means a youth who is currently a child welfare or juvenile justice youth and has formal or informal action, pending or active, through child welfare, probation, or the respective court.
   11. “Homeless” means couch surfing or sleeping on the street or in a vehicle, a shelter, or other temporary accommodations without a permanent residence to which a person can return.
   12. “Informal child welfare services” means any referrals to community-based services provided to families who come to the attention of child welfare services, but do not meet statutory criteria for formal intervention.
   13. “Informal probation” means a status of probation when a youth has been diverted from formal wardship status.
   14. “Juvenile justice crossover youth” means a youth whose juvenile justice case has been terminated in favor of a child welfare finding.
   15. “Permanency” means that a child achieves reunification with a parent, legal guardianship, adoption, or customary adoption for tribal youth.
   16. “Recidivism” means any criminal or juvenile justice dispositions made within three years of a previous juvenile justice disposition.
   17. “Runaway” means leaving home without permission from the parents, probation department, or child welfare department.
   18. “Voluntary services” means services provided to families in lieu of filing a petition or subsequent to dismissal of a petition already filed, with the consent of the family.
2. Deletes a Judicial Council working group on dual-status youth, which has been completed.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
2. Provides that a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency jurisdiction rendering the child a ward. (Sections 601 and 602.)
3. Requires that, if a child is both a dependent and a delinquent, the probation department and child welfare services agency must initially determine which status will best serve the interests of the child and the protection of society. Notwithstanding the above, authorizes the probation department and the child welfare services agency in any county, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge, to create a dual-status protocol which would permit a minor who meets specified criteria to be designated simultaneously as both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. (Section 241.1.) 
4. Requires the Judicial Council, on or before January 31, 2017, to convene a group of specified stakeholders working with dependents and wards to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes that will improve both identification of this population of youth and service delivery. (Section 241.2 (a).)
5. Requires, on or before January 1, 2019, the Department of Social Services (DSS) to implement a function within the Child Welfare Services/ Case Management System to enable county agencies to identify and track youth in their counties involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice system. (Section 241.2 (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: Children involved with both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system have greater challenges to overcome. Youth involved with both systems have significantly poorer outcomes and require greater support and services to address the underlying abuse or neglect. To address the challenges of these youth, the very first step is to identify these youth, and, according to an audit by the California State Auditor in 2016, the state had troubling identifying and tracking these youth. In response, the author’s AB 1911, Chap. 637, Stats. 2016, required the Judicial Council to convene a working group of stakeholders involved in servicing the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court to develop common definitions and recommend additional policy changes to improve both identification of these youth and the delivery of services to them. The Judicial Council’s Data Standards Working Group completed its report to the Legislature in 2017. (Judicial Council, Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911): 2017 Report to the Legislature (Nov. 2017).)

This bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the Data Standards Working Group by codifying key definitions for purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. In support of the bill, the author writes:

AB 465 will provide guidance to better track youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. There are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems. The working group, convened by the [J]udicial [C]ouncil, has created standardized definitions for these terms as well as common identifiers the counties can use to track outcomes for this population.

Dually involved youth and the difficulties they face. Children who suffer abuse or neglect by their parents may be made dependents of the juvenile court for their protection. Children who commit criminal acts may be made wards of the juvenile court and subject to the delinquency system in order to protect the public and rehabilitate them. Historically, the county child welfare agency and the dependency court within the juvenile court system, which serve dependent children, have been separated from the county probation department and the delinquency court, which serve delinquent youth. However, these two groups often overlap. Youth who are the victims of abuse or neglect are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, and youth involved in the delinquency system may end up in the dependency system if their parents are unable to properly care for them. (Joseph Ryan and Mark Testa, Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigating the role of placement and placement instability, Children and Youth Services, 27 (3), 227-249 (2005).) These youth are generally known as dual-status youth (if they have been made both dependents and wards of the juvenile court), dually involved youth (if they are involved with both systems, though not necessarily adjudicated as such), or crossover youth (if they cross over from one system to the other).

The prospects for youth who are either dependents or wards are significantly worse as compared with youth who have no involvement in either system. However, the outcomes for crossover youth are even worse. As compared to dependent youth, crossover youth are more than twice as likely to be heavy users of public systems in adulthood, three times as likely to experience a jail stay, 1.5 times more likely to receive General Relief, and 50 percent less likely to be consistently employed. (Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Fact Sheet: Young Adult Outcomes of Youth Exiting Dependent or Delinquent Care in Los Angeles County, 1 (Nov. 2011).) As one report noted, “[d]espite being served by two systems, these youth often fall through the cracks.” (http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-areas/dual-status-youth/index.html.) California has struggled to help these dually-involved youth address the trauma they have suffered, receive the services they require to heal regardless of where they are in the system, help them avoid recidivism and re-entry into foster care, and help them become healthy, productive adults.

Distinguishing juvenile “delinquency” and “dependency” systems, and limitations on dual juvenile court jurisdiction. Juvenile “delinquency” and juvenile “dependency” are two separate juvenile court systems in California. The juvenile delinquency system is concerned with minors charged with crimes, while the juvenile dependency system focuses on minors who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected. Prior to 2004, the general rule in California was that minors could not be both dependent children of the court and delinquent wards of the court at the same time. It had to be one or the other. Thus, a minor could be either a dependent child and receive services from the child welfare services department OR a ward of the court and receive services from the probation department. When overlap occurred, the law required the county welfare services department and the county probation department to make a “joint assessment” to determine which system was most appropriate for the minor and society. (Section 241.1 (a).) However, in some cases, a minor can fall within both jurisdictions. These minors were considered “dual-status.”

In 2004, the Legislature passed AB 129 (Cohn), Chap. 468, Stats. 2004, which authorized counties for the first time to develop a protocol allowing the juvenile court to declare a minor to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. AB 129 was enacted in response to concerns that the then existing statutory prohibition of simultaneous jurisdiction adversely impacted children under dependency jurisdiction who cross over into delinquency jurisdiction, and have their status as a dependent terminated. AB 129 authorized each county’s probation department and child welfare services department to create a jointly written protocol to allow both departments to jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be designated a dual-status child if the child met specified criteria in the joint protocol. The dual-status designation was viewed as a means to better serve the needs of troubled youth in both systems that have significantly worse outcomes and require greater support and services to address the underlying abuse or neglect.

According to the Judicial Council, only 18 of California’s 58 counties have elected to develop these protocols, but those counties are relatively large, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, so that most youth involved with both the dependency and delinquency systems in California today live in dual-status jurisdictions. Because of local flexibility, dual-status jurisdictions have different operating protocols and are not necessarily comparable.

More guidance is needed to identify, track, and better serve dual-status youth. Over the years, various legislation, research, and studies have attempted to address the needs of dual-status youth. In February of 2017, this Committee, along with the Assembly Committees on Human Services and Public Safety, held a hearing on this issue, entitled “How Can California Best Serve the Needs of Youth Involved with Both the Dependency and Delinquency Systems?”

Yet, despite these efforts, dual-status youth in California remain largely unidentified and underserviced. The State Auditor, directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, was asked to determine how well counties were serving crossover youth. The State Auditor found it could generally not determine how county programs were performing because the state had not issued guidelines to the counties on how to track or even identify these youth, and thus, it was “difficult to determine the success of county efforts.” (California State Auditor, Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems, Report 2015-115, p. 2 (Feb. 2016).)

Following the State Auditor report, in 2016, AB 1911 (Eggman), Chap. 637, Stats. 2016, required DSS to implement a function within the Child Welfare Services/ Case Management System that would enable county agencies to identify and track youth in their counties in both the child welfare and juvenile justice system. That bill further required the Judicial Council to convene stakeholders to suggest common definitions and recommend additional policy changes to improve both identification of this population of youth and service delivery.

The Judicial Council’s Dual-Status Youth Data Standards Working Group. In response to the challenges highlighted by the State Auditor’s report, and the legislative mandate set forth in AB 1911, the Judicial Council formed the Data Standards Working Group which included stakeholders from probation, social services at the state and county level, attorneys, policy advocates, and education officials. The Data Standards Working Group was charged with crafting recommendations for: 1) common identifiers and standard definitions for counties to use across child welfare and juvenile justice systems; (2) identified and defined outcomes for counties to track youth involved in both systems, including outcomes related to recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment and education; (3) established baselines for outcomes to be tracked; and (4) an assessment of costs and benefits associated with requiring counties to implement the working group’s recommendations.

The working group acknowledged that California faces particular challenges in that juvenile probation services are decentralized and there is no statewide juvenile justice data system as in other states, for example. The numerous juvenile probation departments and various data systems make the data standardization goal articulated in AB 1911 very complex, yet critically important. The working group made the following recommendations in its 2017 required report to the Legislature:

Standardized Terms and Definitions. The working group suggested that consideration be given to changing the current terminology of “delinquency” and “dependency” in all relevant codes that address child welfare and juvenile justice youth to be “child welfare” and “juvenile justice.” These labels have negative connotations that impact how systems and communities view youth and families, as well as how youth and families view themselves. The working group also recommended that various identifying terms, and other terms necessary to track outcomes of identified youth and additional terms be defined statewide.

Common Identifier. The working group recommended that a unique identifier be generated so that, at least initially on an annual basis, youth can be tracked. The idea – and the working group recommends that the Legislature explore – is to create a master repository so that youth can be tracked across systems in real time.

Terms for Tracking Outcomes. Data planning for dually-involved youth illuminated the fact that many terms are defined differently within different systems, or lack any clear definition at all. To ensure that outcomes are tracked consistently between systems and across counties, the working group suggested that a specific set of terms be defined that relate to the experiences of these youth to include, among many others, recidivism, child welfare reentry, and child welfare re-detention. The working group further recommended that these definitions be used to track outcomes for these youth across the state.

Development of Baselines. Finally, the working group recommends that before outcome goals are set, baseline data be collected and analyzed, at the county level, for two to three years. This first step will help develop, county and statewide outcome goals for dual-status youth involved with both the child welfare and juvenile justice system.

This bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the statutorily required, Judicial Council working group. AB 465 seeks to implement some of the recommendations of the working group by defining various terms for purposes of tracking the involvement of youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system as recommended by the working group. Because there are currently no standardized definitions for terms relating to youth involved in both systems, and the common identifiers needed for tracking outcomes, the counties are lacking the crucial information needed to monitor outcomes for this vulnerable population of young people. The terms defined by the bill include “child welfare history,” “child welfare crossover youth” “child welfare reentry,” “diversion,” dual-status youth,” “dually identified youth,” “dually involved youth,” “homeless,” “juvenile justice crossover youth,” and “runaway.”

The Judicial Council notes the importance of adopting the working group’s recommendations regarding common definitions:

The benefit of adopting the working group recommendations is significant both from a practical and a symbolic point of view. From a practical standpoint, it is vital to have common, well- defined terms when identifying and tracking youth and their outcomes. Without this foundation, data collection and reporting is unlikely to be meaningful or useful. Any effort to develop systems or applications for collecting data on this population of youth will be without purpose in the absence of standardized terms. Symbolically, the adoption of these terms serves to begin breaking down silos between child- and family-serving systems by providing a shared lexicon for work related to the clients they have in common. This creates a foundation for local collaborative and coordinated efforts that ultimately reflect the best practice for dual-status and crossover youth. Therefore, the working group concludes that the benefit of adopting the standardized terms and definitions suggested outweighs any potential associated costs. (Judicial Council, Dual-Status Youth Data Standards (AB 1911): 2017 Report to the Legislature, p.18 (Nov. 2017).)

The Juvenile Court Judges of California add that codifying the definitions developed by the working group is a “significant start.” The judges “hope that eventually the recommendations as to what data to track and what outcomes to measure [for dually involved youth] will also be adopted, thus creating a common language, data, and outcome tracking throughout California.”

As discussed above, these are not the only recommendations of the Judicial Council working group. The author is considering whether it is feasible to add additional recommendations to this bill.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Children’s Advocacy Institute, sponsoring this bill, argues in support:

The simplicity of this bill should not belie its importance. California is not alone in its challenges to collect and report data on this population of youth and will be among the first in the nation to improve outcomes for many of the most traumatized and high-need youth within our public systems … it is estimated that as many as 50% of youth referred to the juvenile court on a juvenile justice matter have had involvement with the child welfare system. Children who touch both systems are among the most vulnerable youth who also tend to experience the poorest outcomes in childhood and young adulthood.

John Burton Advocates for Youth (JBAY) adds that “[w]ith the proposal outlined in AB 465, California can begin streamlining data collection on dual-status children and better measure, and inform its efforts on programming for them.” Further supporting this position, JBAY cites the State Auditor’s report that the need for standardized terminology was made abundantly clear by stymied efforts to assess the effectiveness of efforts to identify and track children involved in both child welfare and juvenile justice; and therefore, was unable to compare outcomes among selected counties due to the lack of consistent terminology.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Children’s Advocacy Institute (sponsor)

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Juvenile Court Judges of California

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Shontel Johnson and Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334