Current Status:

Failed

(2024-02-01: From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.)

Introduced

In Committee

First Chamber

In Committee

Second Chamber

Enacted

Version:

Existing law authorizes a court to order a ward who is 14 years of age or older to be committed to a secure youth treatment facility, operated by the county of commitment, for a period of confinement if the ward is adjudicated and found to be a ward based on the commitment of a specified serious offense committed when the juvenile was 14 years or older, that adjudication is the most recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated, and the court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. Existing law requires the baseline term of confinement to be determined according to offense-based classifications, as specified.

This bill would eliminate the requirement that the adjudication of specified serious offenses committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older be the most recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated.

This bill would prohibit a youth, following a youths commitment to a secure youth facility, from being found ineligible for continued commitment to a secure youth treatment facility as a result of subsequent adjudicated petitions. The bill would prohibit a court from increasing a youths current baseline term of confinement based on subsequent adjudications.

Version:

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1.Section 875 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:875.

(a)In addition to the types of treatment specified in Sections 727 and 730, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility for a period of confinement described in subdivision (b) if the ward meets all of the following criteria:

(1)The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older.

(2)The adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated.

(3)The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. In determining this, the court shall consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agency or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition of the case. The court shall additionally make its determination based on all of the following criteria:

(A)The severity of the offense or offenses for which the ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the wards role in the offense, the wards behavior, and harm done to victims.

(B)The wards previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward.

(C)Whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward.

(D)Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive disposition that is available to the court.

(E)The wards age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and any disabilities or special needs affecting the safety or suitability of committing the ward to a term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.

(b)(1)In making its order of commitment for a ward, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward that is based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated. The baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term of confinement for the ward shall be determined according to offense-based classifications that are approved by the Judicial Council, as described in subdivision (h). Pending the development and adoption of offense-based classifications by the Judicial Council, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward utilizing the discharge consideration date guidelines applied by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice prior to its closure and as set forth in Sections 30807 to 30813, inclusive, of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. These guidelines shall be used only to determine a baseline confinement time for the ward and shall not be used or relied on to modify the wards confinement time in any manner other than as provided in this section. The court may, pending the adoption of Judicial Council guidelines, modify the initial baseline term with a deviation of plus or minus six months. The baseline term shall also be subject to modification in progress review hearings as described in subdivision (e).

(2)For youth transferred from the Division of Juvenile Justice and committed to a secure youth treatment facility, the baseline term of confinement shall not exceed a youths projected juvenile parole board date as defined in paragraph (12) of Section 30800 of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, at the time of their transfer from the Division of Juvenile Justice. Youth shall receive credit against their secure youth treatment facility baseline term for all programs completed or substantially completed at the Division of Juvenile Justice, as reflected in the transition report completed by the Division of Juvenile Justice.

(3)Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), following a youths commitment to a secure youth treatment facility, subsequent adjudicated petitions shall not render a youth ineligible for continued commitment to a secure youth treatment facility. Subsequent adjudications shall not be a basis for increasing a youths current baseline term of confinement set pursuant to this subdivision.

(c)(1)In making its order of commitment, the court shall additionally set a maximum term of confinement for the ward based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters that brought or continued the ward under the jurisdiction of the court and as deemed appropriate to achieve rehabilitation. The maximum term of confinement shall represent the longest term of confinement in a facility that the ward may serve subject to the following:

(A)A ward committed to a secure youth treatment facility under this section shall not be held in secure confinement beyond 23 years of age, or two years from the date of the commitment, whichever occurs later. However, if the ward has been committed to a secure youth treatment facility based on adjudication for an offense or offenses for which the ward, if convicted in adult criminal court, would face an aggregate sentence of seven or more years, the ward shall not be held in secure confinement beyond 25 years of age, or two years from the date of commitment, whichever occurs later.

(B)The maximum term of confinement shall not exceed the middle term of imprisonment that can be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses. If the court elects to aggregate the period of physical confinement on multiple counts or multiple petitions, including previously sustained petitions adjudging the minor a ward within Section 602, the maximum term of confinement shall be the aggregate term of imprisonment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1170.1 of the Penal Code, which includes any additional term imposed pursuant to Section 667, 667.5, 667.6, or 12022.1 of the Penal Code, and Section 11370.2 of the Health and Safety Code.

(C)Precommitment credits for time served must be applied against the maximum term of confinement as set pursuant to this subdivision.

(2)For purposes of this section, maximum term of confinement has the same meaning as maximum term of imprisonment, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 726.

(d)(1)Within 30 judicial days of making an order of commitment to a secure youth treatment facility, the court shall receive, review, and approve an individual rehabilitation plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) for the ward that has been submitted to the court by the probation department and any other agencies or individuals the court deems necessary for the development of the plan. The plan may be developed in consultation with a multidisciplinary team of youth service, mental and behavioral health, education, and other treatment providers who are convened to advise the court for this purpose. The prosecutor and the counsel for the ward may provide input in the development of the rehabilitation plan prior to the courts approval of the plan. The plan may be modified by the court based on all of the information provided.

(2)An individual rehabilitation plan shall do all of the following:

(A)Identify the wards needs in relation to treatment, education, and development, including any special needs the ward may have in relation to health, mental or emotional health, disabilities, or gender-related or other special needs.

(B)Describe the programming, treatment, and education to be provided to the ward in relation to the identified needs during the commitment period.

(C)Reflect, and be consistent with, the principles of trauma-informed, evidence-based, and culturally responsive care.

(D)The ward and their family shall be given the opportunity to provide input regarding the needs of the ward during the identification process stated in subparagraph (A), and the opinions of the ward and the wards family shall be included in the rehabilitation plan report to the court.

(e)(1)(A)The court shall, during the term of commitment, including any term spent in a less restrictive program pursuant to subdivision (f), schedule and hold a progress review hearing for the ward not less frequently than once every six months. In the review hearing, the court shall evaluate the wards progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan and shall determine whether the baseline term of confinement is to be modified. The court shall consider the recommendations of counsel, the probation department and any behavioral, educational, or other specialists having information relevant to the wards progress. At the conclusion of each review hearing, upon making a finding on the record, the court may order that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline term or may order that the wards baseline term or previously modified baseline term be modified downward by a reduction of confinement time not to exceed six months for each review hearing. The court may additionally order that the ward be assigned to a less restrictive program, as provided in subdivision (f). The determination of whether the baseline term will be modified, or whether a youth will be assigned to a less restrictive program, is a judicial decision and the juvenile courts discretion may not be limited by stipulation of the parties at any time.

(B)If the ward is already assigned to a less restrictive program, the court may, based on the wards progress, order a reduction in the length of time the ward is to remain in the less restrictive program prior to a probation discharge hearing. If the court determines that ward has failed materially to comply with the court-ordered conditions of placement in the less restrictive program, the court may modify the order of placement in the less restrictive program as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).

(2)The wards confinement time, including time spent in a less restrictive program described in subdivision (f), shall not be extended beyond the baseline confinement term, or beyond a modified baseline term, for disciplinary infractions or other in-custody behaviors. Any infractions or behaviors shall be addressed by alternative means, which may include a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally.

(3)The court shall, at the conclusion of the baseline confinement term, including any modified baseline term, hold a probation discharge hearing for the ward. For a ward who has been placed in a less restrictive program described in subdivision (f), the probation discharge hearing shall occur at the end of the period, or modified period, of placement that has been ordered by the court. At the discharge hearing, the court shall review the wards progress toward meeting the goals of the individual rehabilitation plan and the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agencies or individuals having information the court deems necessary. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall order that the ward be discharged to a period of probation supervision in the community under conditions approved by the court, unless the court finds that the ward constitutes a substantial risk of imminent harm to others in the community if released from custody. If the court so finds, the ward may be retained in custody in a secure youth treatment facility for up to one additional year of confinement, subject to the review hearing and probation discharge hearing provisions of this subdivision and subject to the maximum confinement provisions of subdivision (c).

(4)If the ward is discharged to probation supervision, the court shall determine the reasonable conditions of probation that are suitable to meet the developmental needs and circumstances of the ward and to facilitate the wards successful reentry into the community. The court shall periodically review the wards progress under probation supervision and shall make any additional orders deemed necessary to modify the program of supervision in order to facilitate the provision of services or to otherwise support the wards successful reentry into the community. If the court finds that the ward has failed materially to comply with the reasonable orders of probation imposed by the court, the court may order that the ward be returned to a juvenile facility or to a placement described in subdivision (f) for a period not to exceed either the remainder of the baseline term, including any court-ordered modifications, or six months, whichever is longer, and in any case not to exceed the maximum confinement limits of subdivision (c).

(f)(1)Upon a motion from the probation department or the ward, the court may order that the ward be transferred from a secure youth treatment facility to less restrictive program, such as a halfway house, a camp or ranch, or a community residential or nonresidential service program. The purpose of a less restrictive program is to facilitate the safe and successful reintegration of the ward into the community. The court shall consider the transfer request at the next scheduled treatment review hearing or at a separately scheduled hearing. The court shall consider the recommendations of the probation department on the proposed change in placement. Approval of the request for a less restrictive program shall be made only upon the courts determination that the ward has made substantial progress toward the goals of the individual rehabilitation plan described in subdivision (d) and that placement is consistent with the goals of youth rehabilitation and community safety. In making its determination, the court shall consider both of the following factors:

(A)The wards overall progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan during the period of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.

(B)The programming and community transition services to be provided, or coordinated by the less restrictive program, including, but not limited to, any educational, vocational, counseling, housing, or other services made available through the program.

(2)In any order transferring the ward from a secure youth treatment facility to a less restrictive program, the court may require the ward to observe any conditions of performance or compliance with the program that are reasonable and appropriate in the individual case and that are within the capacity of the ward to perform. The court shall set the length of time the ward is to remain in a less restrictive program, not to exceed the remainder of the baseline or modified baseline term, prior to a probation discharge hearing described in subdivision (e). If, after placement in a less restrictive program, the court determines that the ward has materially failed to comply with the court-ordered conditions of placement in the program, the court may modify the terms and conditions of placement in the program or may order the ward to be returned to a secure youth treatment facility for the remainder of the baseline term, or modified baseline term, and subject to further periodic review hearings, as provided in subdivision (e) and to the maximum confinement provisions of subdivision (c). If the ward is returned to the secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this paragraph, the wards baseline or modified baseline term shall be adjusted to include credit for the time served by the ward in the less restrictive program.

(g)A secure youth treatment facility, as described in this section, shall meet the following criteria:

(1)The facility shall be a secure facility that is operated, utilized, or accessed by the county of commitment to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for wards having been adjudicated for the offenses specified in subdivision (a).

(2)The facility may be a stand-alone facility, such as a probation camp or other facility operated under contract with the county, or with another county, or may be a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility, including a juvenile hall or probation camp, that is configured and programmed to serve the population described in subdivision (a) and is in compliance with the standards described in paragraph (3).

(3)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall by July 1, 2023, review existing juvenile facility standards and modify or add standards for the establishment, design, security, programming and education, and staffing of any facility that is utilized or accessed by the court as a secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this section. The standards shall be developed by the board with the coordination and concurrence of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration established by Section 2200. The standards shall specify how the facility may be used to serve or to separate juveniles, other than juveniles described in subdivision (a) serving baseline confinement terms, who may also be detained in or committed to the facility or to some portion of the facility. Pending the final adoption of these modified standards, a secure youth treatment facility shall comply with applicable minimum standards for juvenile facilities in Title 15 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

(4)A county proposing to establish a secure youth treatment facility for wards described in subdivision (a) shall notify the Board of State and Community Corrections of the operation of the facility and shall submit a description of the facility to the board in a format designated by the board. Commencing July 1, 2022, the Board of State and Community Corrections shall conduct a biennial inspection in accordance with Section 209 of each secure youth treatment facility that was used for the confinement of juveniles placed pursuant to subdivision (a) during the preceding calendar year. To the extent new standards are not yet in place, the board shall utilize the standards in existing regulations.

(5)In lieu of establishing its own secure youth treatment facility, a county may contract with another county having a secure youth treatment facility to accept commitments of wards described in subdivision (a).

(6)A county may establish a secure youth treatment facility to serve as a regional center for commitment of juveniles by one or more other counties on a contract payment basis.

(h)(1)By July 1, 2023, the Judicial Council shall develop and adopt a matrix of offense-based classifications to be applied by the juvenile courts in all counties in setting the baseline confinement terms described in subdivision (b). Each classification level or category shall specify a set of offenses within the level or category that is linked to a standard baseline term of years to be assigned to youth, based on their most serious recent adjudicated offense, who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility as provided in this section. The individual baseline term of years to be assigned in each case may be derived from a standard range of years for each offense level or category as designated by the Judicial Council. The classification matrix may provide for upward or downward deviations from the baseline term and may also provide for a system of positive incentives or credits for time served. In developing the matrix, the Judicial Council shall be advised by a working group of stakeholders, which shall include representatives from prosecution, defense, probation, behavioral health, youth service providers, youth formerly incarcerated in the Division of Juvenile Justice, and youth advocacy and other stakeholders and organizations having relevant expertise or information on dispositions and sentencing of youth in the juvenile justice system. In the development process, the Judicial Council shall also examine and take into account youth sentencing and length-of-stay guidelines or practices adopted by other states or recommended by organizations, academic institutions, or individuals having expertise or having conducted relevant research on dispositions and sentencing of youth in the juvenile justice system.

(2)Upon final adoption by the Judicial Council, the matrix of offense-based classifications shall be applied in a standardized manner by juvenile courts in each county in cases where the court is required to set a baseline confinement term under subdivision (b) for wards who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility. The discharge consideration date guidelines of the Division of Juvenile Justice that were applied on an interim basis, as provided in subdivision (b), shall not thereafter be utilized to determine baseline confinement terms for wards who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this section.

(i)A court shall not commit a juvenile to any juvenile facility, including a secure youth treatment facility as defined in this section, for a period that exceeds the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses.

(j)A person who is 25 years of age or older shall not be committed to or detained in a county juvenile facility, unless the court finds that such a commitment or detention is in the best interest of that person and does not find that it would create a risk to the other youth in the juvenile facility. A juvenile court exercising jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older may order commitment or detention of the person into an adult facility, including a jail or other facility established for the confinement of adults, or into a less restrictive program, as defined in subdivision (f), if the person is otherwise eligible for that program.

(k)Upon return to local custody, a person who was, prior to July 1, 2023, sentenced to state prison and was found to be a ward of the court and committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, shall not be committed or detained in a juvenile facility, unless the juvenile court with jurisdiction over that person finds it is in the persons best interest and does not find that it would create a risk to the other youth in the juvenile facility. A juvenile court exercising jurisdiction over the commitment or detention of a person described in this subdivision may order the person into an adult facility, including a jail or other facility established for the confinement of adults, a less restrictive program, as defined in section (f), if the person is otherwise eligible for that program, or returned to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1732.9.

SECTION 1.Section 875 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:875.(a)In addition to the types of treatment specified in Sections 727 and 730, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility for a period of confinement described in subdivision (b) if the ward meets both of the following criteria:(1)The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older.(2)The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. In determining this, the court shall consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agency or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition of the case. The court shall additionally make its determination based on all of the following criteria:(A)The severity of the offense or offenses for which the ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the wards role in the offense, the wards behavior, and harm done to victims.(B)The wards previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward.(C)Whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward.(D)Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive disposition that is available to the court.(E)The wards age, developmental maturity, mental and emotional health, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and any disabilities or special needs affecting the safety or suitability of committing the ward to a term of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.(b)In making its order of commitment for a ward, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward that is based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated. The baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term of confinement for the ward shall be determined according to offense-based classifications that are approved by the Judicial Council, as described in subdivision (h). Pending the development and adoption of offense-based classifications by the Judicial Council, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward utilizing the discharge consideration date guidelines applied by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice prior to its closure and as set forth in Sections 30807 to 30813, inclusive, of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. These guidelines shall be used only to determine a baseline confinement time for the ward and shall not be used or relied on to modify the wards confinement time in any manner other than as provided in this section. The court may, pending the adoption of Judicial Council guidelines, modify the initial baseline term with a deviation of plus or minus six months. The baseline term shall also be subject to modification in progress review hearings as described in subdivision (e).(c)(1)In making its order of commitment, the court shall additionally set a maximum term of confinement for the ward based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters that brought or continued the ward under the jurisdiction of the court and as deemed appropriate to achieve rehabilitation. The maximum term of confinement shall represent the longest term of confinement in a facility that the ward may serve subject to the following:(A)A ward committed to a secure youth treatment facility under this section shall not be held in secure confinement beyond 23 years of age, or two years from the date of the commitment, whichever occurs later. However, if the ward has been committed to a secure youth treatment facility based on adjudication for an offense or offenses for which the ward, if convicted in adult criminal court, would face an aggregate sentence of seven or more years, the ward shall not be held in secure confinement beyond 25 years of age, or two years from the date of commitment, whichever occurs later.(B)The maximum term of confinement shall not exceed the middle term of imprisonment that can be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses. If the court elects to aggregate the period of physical confinement on multiple counts or multiple petitions, including previously sustained petitions adjudging the minor a ward within Section 602, the maximum term of confinement shall be the aggregate term of imprisonment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 1170.1 of the Penal Code, which includes any additional term imposed pursuant to Section 667, 667.5, 667.6, or 12022.1 of the Penal Code, and Section 11370.2 of the Health and Safety Code.(C)Precommitment credits for time served must be applied against the maximum term of confinement as set pursuant to this subdivision.(2)For purposes of this section, maximum term of confinement has the same meaning as maximum term of imprisonment, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 726.(d)(1)Within 30 judicial days of making an order of commitment to a secure youth treatment facility, the court shall receive, review, and approve an individual rehabilitation plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) for the ward that has been submitted to the court by the probation department and any other agencies or individuals the court deems necessary for the development of the plan. The plan may be developed in consultation with a multidisciplinary team of youth service, mental and behavioral health, education, and other treatment providers who are convened to advise the court for this purpose. The prosecutor and the counsel for the ward may provide input in the development of the rehabilitation plan prior to the courts approval of the plan. The plan may be modified by the court based on all of the information provided.(2)An individual rehabilitation plan shall do all of the following:(A)Identify the wards needs in relation to treatment, education, and development, including any special needs the ward may have in relation to health, mental or emotional health, disabilities, or gender-related or other special needs.(B)Describe the programming, treatment, and education to be provided to the ward in relation to the identified needs during the commitment period.(C)Reflect, and be consistent with, the principles of trauma-informed, evidence-based, and culturally responsive care.(D)The ward and their family shall be given the opportunity to provide input regarding the needs of the ward during the identification process stated in subparagraph (A), and the opinions of the ward and the wards family shall be included in the rehabilitation plan report to the court.(e)(1)The court shall, during the term of commitment, schedule and hold a progress review hearing for the ward not less frequently than once every six months. In the review hearing, the court shall evaluate the wards progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan and shall determine whether the baseline term of confinement is to be modified. The court shall consider the recommendations of counsel, the probation department and any behavioral, educational, or other specialists having information relevant to the wards progress. At the conclusion of each review hearing, upon making a finding on the record, the court may order that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline term or may order that the wards baseline term or previously modified baseline term be modified downward by a reduction of confinement time not to exceed six months for each review hearing. The court may additionally order that the ward be assigned to a less restrictive program, as provided in subdivision (f).(2)The wards confinement time, including time spent in a less restrictive program described in subdivision (f), shall not be extended beyond the baseline confinement term, or beyond a modified baseline term, for disciplinary infractions or other in-custody behaviors. Any infractions or behaviors shall be addressed by alternative means, which may include a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally.(3)The court shall, at the conclusion of the baseline confinement term, including any modified baseline term, hold a probation discharge hearing for the ward. For a ward who has been placed in a less restrictive program described in subdivision (f), the probation discharge hearing shall occur at the end of the period, or modified period, of placement that has been ordered by the court. At the discharge hearing, the court shall review the wards progress toward meeting the goals of the individual rehabilitation plan and the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agencies or individuals having information the court deems necessary. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall order that the ward be discharged to a period of probation supervision in the community under conditions approved by the court, unless the court finds that the ward constitutes a substantial risk of imminent harm to others in the community if released from custody. If the court so finds, the ward may be retained in custody in a secure youth treatment facility for up to one additional year of confinement, subject to the review hearing and probation discharge hearing provisions of this subdivision and subject to the maximum confinement provisions of subdivision (c).(4)If the ward is discharged to probation supervision, the court shall determine the reasonable conditions of probation that are suitable to meet the developmental needs and circumstances of the ward and to facilitate the wards successful reentry into the community. The court shall periodically review the wards progress under probation supervision and shall make any additional orders deemed necessary to modify the program of supervision in order to facilitate the provision of services or to otherwise support the wards successful reentry into the community. If the court finds that the ward has failed materially to comply with the reasonable orders of probation imposed by the court, the court may order that the ward be returned to a juvenile facility or to a placement described in subdivision (f) for a period not to exceed either the remainder of the baseline term, including any court-ordered modifications, or six months, whichever is longer, and in any case not to exceed the maximum confinement limits of subdivision (c).(f)(1)Upon a motion from the probation department or the ward, the court may order that the ward be transferred from a secure youth treatment facility to less restrictive program, such as a halfway house, a camp or ranch, or a community residential or nonresidential service program. The purpose of a less restrictive program is to facilitate the safe and successful reintegration of the ward into the community. The court shall consider the transfer request at the next scheduled treatment review hearing or at a separately scheduled hearing. The court shall consider the recommendations of the probation department on the proposed change in placement. Approval of the request for a less restrictive program shall be made only upon the courts determination that the ward has made substantial progress toward the goals of the individual rehabilitation plan described in subdivision (d) and that placement is consistent with the goals of youth rehabilitation and community safety. In making its determination, the court shall consider both of the following factors:(A)The wards overall progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan during the period of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.(B)The programming and community transition services to be provided, or coordinated by the less restrictive program, including, but not limited to, any educational, vocational, counseling, housing, or other services made available through the program.(2)In any order transferring the ward from a secure youth treatment facility to a less restrictive program, the court may require the ward to observe any conditions of performance or compliance with the program that are reasonable and appropriate in the individual case and that are within the capacity of the ward to perform. The court shall set the length of time the ward is to remain in a less restrictive program, not to exceed the remainder of the baseline or modified baseline term, prior to a probation discharge hearing described in subdivision (e). If, after placement in a less restrictive program, the court determines that the ward has materially failed to comply with the court-ordered conditions of placement in the program, the court may modify the terms and conditions of placement in the program or may order the ward to be returned to a secure youth treatment facility for the remainder of the baseline term, or modified baseline term, and subject to further periodic review hearings, as provided in subdivision (e) and to the maximum confinement provisions of subdivision (c). If the ward is returned to the secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this paragraph, the wards baseline or modified baseline term shall be adjusted to include credit for the time served by the ward in the less restrictive program.(g)A secure youth treatment facility, as described in this section, shall meet the following criteria:(1)The facility shall be a secure facility that is operated, utilized, or accessed by the county of commitment to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for wards having been adjudicated for the offenses specified in subdivision (a).(2)The facility may be a stand-alone facility, such as a probation camp or other facility operated under contract with the county, or with another county, or may be a unit or portion of an existing county juvenile facility, including a juvenile hall or probation camp, that is configured and programmed to serve the population described in subdivision (a) and is in compliance with the standards described in paragraph (3).(3)The Board of State and Community Corrections shall by July 1, 2023, review existing juvenile facility standards and modify or add standards for the establishment, design, security, programming and education, and staffing of any facility that is utilized or accessed by the court as a secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this section. The standards shall be developed by the board with the coordination and concurrence of the Office of Youth and Community Restoration established by Section 2200. The standards shall specify how the facility may be used to serve or to separate juveniles, other than juveniles described in subdivision (a) serving baseline confinement terms, who may also be detained in or committed to the facility or to some portion of the facility. Pending the final adoption of these modified standards, a secure youth treatment facility shall comply with applicable minimum standards for juvenile facilities in Title 15 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.(4)A county proposing to establish a secure youth treatment facility for wards described in subdivision (a) shall notify the Board of State and Community Corrections of the operation of the facility and shall submit a description of the facility to the board in a format designated by the board. Commencing July 1, 2022, the Board of State and Community Corrections shall conduct a biennial inspection of each secure youth treatment facility that was used for the confinement of juveniles placed pursuant to subdivision (a) during the preceding calendar year. To the extent new standards are not yet in place, the board shall utilize the standards in existing regulations.(5)In lieu of establishing its own secure youth treatment facility, a county may contract with another county having a secure youth treatment facility to accept commitments of wards described in subdivision (a).(6)A county may establish a secure youth treatment facility to serve as a regional center for commitment of juveniles by one or more other counties on a contract payment basis.(h)(1)By July 1, 2023, the Judicial Council shall develop and adopt a matrix of offense-based classifications to be applied by the juvenile courts in all counties in setting the baseline confinement terms described in subdivision (b). Each classification level or category shall specify a set of offenses within the level or category that is linked to a standard baseline term of years to be assigned to youth, based on their most serious recent adjudicated offense, who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility as provided in this section. The individual baseline term of years to be assigned in each case may be derived from a standard range of years for each offense level or category as designated by the Judicial Council. The classification matrix may provide for upward or downward deviations from the baseline term and may also provide for a system of positive incentives or credits for time served. In developing the matrix, the Judicial Council shall be advised by a working group of stakeholders, which shall include representatives from prosecution, defense, probation, behavioral health, youth service providers, youth formerly incarcerated in the Division of Juvenile Justice, and youth advocacy and other stakeholders and organizations having relevant expertise or information on dispositions and sentencing of youth in the juvenile justice system. In the development process, the Judicial Council shall also examine and take into account youth sentencing and length-of-stay guidelines or practices adopted by other states or recommended by organizations, academic institutions, or individuals having expertise or having conducted relevant research on dispositions and sentencing of youth in the juvenile justice system.(2)Upon final adoption by the Judicial Council, the matrix of offense-based classifications shall be applied in a standardized manner by juvenile courts in each county in cases where the court is required to set a baseline confinement term under subdivision (b) for wards who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility. The discharge consideration date guidelines of the Division of Juvenile Justice that were applied on an interim basis, as provided in subdivision (b), shall not thereafter be utilized to determine baseline confinement terms for wards who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility under the provisions of this section.(i)A court shall not commit a juvenile to any juvenile facility, including a secure youth treatment facility as defined in this section, for a period that exceeds the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense or offenses.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1.Section 875 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:875.

(1)The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed when the juvenile was 14 years of age or older.

(2)The adjudication described in paragraph (1) is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated.(3)

(2)The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive, alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. In determining this, the court shall consider all relevant and material evidence, including the recommendations of counsel, the probation department, and any other agency or individual designated by the court to advise on the appropriate disposition of the case. The court shall additionally make its determination based on all of the following criteria:

(A)The severity of the offense or offenses for which the ward has been most recently adjudicated, including the wards role in the offense, the wards behavior, and harm done to victims.

(B)The wards previous delinquent history, including the adequacy and success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the ward.

(C)Whether the programming, treatment, and education offered and provided in a secure youth treatment facility is appropriate to meet the treatment and security needs of the ward.

(D)Whether the goals of rehabilitation and community safety can be met by assigning the ward to an alternative, less restrictive disposition that is available to the court.

(b)In making its order of commitment for a ward, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward that is based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated. The baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term of confinement for the ward shall be determined according to offense-based classifications that are approved by the Judicial Council, as described in subdivision (h). Pending the development and adoption of offense-based classifications by the Judicial Council, the court shall set a baseline term of confinement for the ward utilizing the discharge consideration date guidelines applied by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice prior to its closure and as set forth in Sections 30807 to 30813, inclusive, of Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations. These guidelines shall be used only to determine a baseline confinement time for the ward and shall not be used or relied on to modify the wards confinement time in any manner other than as provided in this section. The court may, pending the adoption of Judicial Council guidelines, modify the initial baseline term with a deviation of plus or minus six months. The baseline term shall also be subject to modification in progress review hearings as described in subdivision (e).

(C)Precommitment credits for time served must be applied against the maximum term of confinement as set pursuant to this subdivision.

(2)For purposes of this section, maximum term of confinement has the same meaning as maximum term of imprisonment, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 726.

(2)An individual rehabilitation plan shall do all of the following:

(B)Describe the programming, treatment, and education to be provided to the ward in relation to the identified needs during the commitment period.

(C)Reflect, and be consistent with, the principles of trauma-informed, evidence-based, and culturally responsive care.

(e)(1)The court shall, during the term of commitment, schedule and hold a progress review hearing for the ward not less frequently than once every six months. In the review hearing, the court shall evaluate the wards progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan and shall determine whether the baseline term of confinement is to be modified. The court shall consider the recommendations of counsel, the probation department and any behavioral, educational, or other specialists having information relevant to the wards progress. At the conclusion of each review hearing, upon making a finding on the record, the court may order that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline term or may order that the wards baseline term or previously modified baseline term be modified downward by a reduction of confinement time not to exceed six months for each review hearing. The court may additionally order that the ward be assigned to a less restrictive program, as provided in subdivision (f).

(A)The wards overall progress in relation to the rehabilitation plan during the period of confinement in a secure youth treatment facility.

(g)A secure youth treatment facility, as described in this section, shall meet the following criteria:

(4)A county proposing to establish a secure youth treatment facility for wards described in subdivision (a) shall notify the Board of State and Community Corrections of the operation of the facility and shall submit a description of the facility to the board in a format designated by the board. Commencing July 1, 2022, the Board of State and Community Corrections shall conduct a biennial inspection of each secure youth treatment facility that was used for the confinement of juveniles placed pursuant to subdivision (a) during the preceding calendar year. To the extent new standards are not yet in place, the board shall utilize the standards in existing regulations.

(6)A county may establish a secure youth treatment facility to serve as a regional center for commitment of juveniles by one or more other counties on a contract payment basis.

Date	Status
Feb 1, 2024	From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
Jan 31, 2024	Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
Jan 9, 2024	In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
Jan 4, 2024	Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Jan 3, 2024	From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
Apr 11, 2023	In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Reconsideration granted.
Mar 9, 2023	Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Feb 18, 2023	From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
Feb 17, 2023	Read first time. To print.

Date	Description	Location	Votes
Apr 11, 2023	Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]	Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety	2 0 6 Failed

Key

Pro

Against

Did Not Vote

This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.

Positions by individuals are not included.

* Testimony in a hearing

** Position recorded in bill analysis

*** Position recorded in written testimony

Organization	Position	Date
Aclu California Action	** Against
Anti Recidivism Coalition	** Against
Asian Prisoner Support Committee	** Against
California Attorneys For Criminal Justice	** Against
California District Attorneys Association	** Support
California Public Defenders Association	** Against
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School	** Against
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice	** Against
Chief Probation Officers Of California	** Support
Children's Defense Fund - CA	** Against
Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program	** Against
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice	** Against
Criminal Justice Clinic, Uc Irvine School Of Law	** Against
Ella Baker Center For Human Rights	** Against
Equal Justice Society	** Against
Fresno Barrios Unidos	** Against
Fresno County Public Defender's Office	** Against
Funding the Next Generation	** Against
Haywood Burns Institute	** Against
Human Rights Watch	** Against
Initiate Justice Action	** Against
Instituto Familiar de la Raza	** Against
milpa	** Against
Occupational Therapy Training Program	** Against
Office of Placer County District Attorney	* Support	Apr 11, 2023
Orange County District Attorney	** Support
Orange County, CA	* Support	Apr 11, 2023
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center	** Against
Public Counsel	** Against
Riverside County District Attorney	** Support
San Diego Public Defender	** Against
San Francisco Public Defender	** Against
San Mateo County Bar Association, Private Defender Program	** Against
Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos INC.	** Against
Sigma Beta Xi Inc.	** Against
Smart Justice California, a project of Tides Advocacy	** Against
Stone Advocacy	* Support	Apr 11, 2023
young community developers	** Against
Youth Justice Education Clinic, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School	** Against

* Testimony in a hearing

** Position recorded in bill analysis

*** Position recorded in written testimony

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Cheryl Anderson

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1582

Author:(Dixon) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

Vote Only

SUMMARY:

Prohibits a youth who is already committed to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) from being found ineligible for continued commitment to a SYTF as a result of subsequent adjudicated petitions, but prohibits a court from increasing the youth’s current baseline term of confinement based on the subsequent adjudications.

EXISTING LAW:

Defines “secure youth treatment facility” as a secure facility that is operated, utilized, or accessed by the county of commitment to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for wards having been adjudicated for specified offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (g)(1).)
Provides that, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility if the ward meets all of the following criteria:
1. The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on a 707(b) offense that was committed when the ward was 14 years of age or older;
2. The 707(b) offense is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated; and,
3. The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (a).)
Requires the court, in making its order of commitment, to set a baseline term of confinement for the ward that is based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (b)(1).)
Specifies that the baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community and is to be determined according to offense-based classifications that are approved by the Judicial Council, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (b)(1).)
Provides that for youth transferred from DJJ and committed to a secure youth treatment facility, the baseline term of confinement shall not exceed a youth’s projected juvenile parole board date, as defined. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (b)(2).)
Requires the court, in making its order of commitment, to additionally set a maximum term of confinement for the ward based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters that brought or continued the ward under the jurisdiction of the court and as deemed appropriate to achieve rehabilitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (c).)
Provides that during the term of commitment, the court must schedule and hold a progress review hearing for the ward not less frequently than once every six months. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(1)(A).)
Allows the court, at the conclusion of each review hearing, to order that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline term or order that the ward’s baseline term or previously modified baseline term be modified downward by a reduction of confinement time not to exceed six months for each review hearing. The court may additionally order that the ward be assigned to a less restrictive program, as provided. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(1)(A).)
Prohibits the ward’s confinement time, including time spent in a less restrictive program, to be extended beyond the baseline confinement term, or beyond a modified baseline term, for disciplinary infractions or other in-custody behaviors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(2).)
Mandates that any infractions or behaviors be addressed by alternative means, which may include a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(2).)
States that the court shall, at the conclusion of the baseline confinement term, including any modified baseline term, hold a probation discharge hearing for the ward. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall order that the ward be discharged to a period of probation supervision in the community under conditions approved by the court, unless the court finds that the ward constitutes a substantial risk of imminent harm to others in the community if released. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(3).)
Provides that if the court finds the ward constitutes a substantial risk of imminent harm to others in the community, the ward may be retained in custody in a SYTF for up to one additional year of confinement, subject to the review hearing and probation discharge hearing provisions and subject to the maximum term of confinement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(3).)
Requires the court, if the ward is discharged to probation supervision, to determine the reasonable conditions of probation that are suitable to meet the developmental needs and circumstances of the ward and to facilitate the ward’s successful reentry into the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(4).)
Requires the court to periodically review the ward’s progress under probation supervision and make any additional orders deemed necessary to modify the program of supervision in order to facilitate the provision of services or to otherwise support the ward’s successful reentry into the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(4).)
Provides that if the court finds that the ward has failed materially to comply with the reasonable orders of probation, the court may order that the ward be returned to a juvenile facility or less restrictive program for a period not to exceed either the remainder of the baseline term or six months, whichever is longer, and in any case not to exceed the maximum confinement limits. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(4).)
Enumerates 30 serious and violent offenses which permit a juvenile to be transferred to adult court, or be admitted to a SYTF, and previously to DJJ. These include: murder, arson, robbery, specified sex crimes committed by force, specified forms of kidnapping, attempted murder, carjacking, aggravated mayhem, voluntary manslaughter, a felony offense in which the minor personally used a weapon, and others. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

Author's Statement: According to the author, “Juveniles committed to Secure Youth Treatment Facilities (SYTF) cannot be adjudicated of subsequent petitions without interfering with their existing commitment and Individual Rehabilitation Plan. The amendment to AB 1582 would ensure that a minor’s commitment to a SYTF cannot be interrupted by subsequent adjudications. The proposed amendment will not result in an increased number of individuals being committed to SYTF, may actually reduce the number of youths subjected to 707(b) transfer hearings, and comports with the overall intent of SB 823 fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment.”
Juvenile Justice Realignment in California: Historically CDCR’s DJJ housed the majority of the state’s juvenile offenders with the number of juveniles housed in these facilities exceeding 15,000 in the 1990’s. In 2003, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Farrell v. Hickman (originally Farrell v. Harper), alleging that CDCR was providing inadequate care for minors housed in its facilities. In January 2005, the state and plaintiffs entered into an agreement which committed reforming the state’s juvenile justice system to a rehabilitative model.

In 2007, the Legislature passed SB 81, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, known as juvenile justice realignment. The premise was that local authorities were better able than the State to provide rehabilitation for many juvenile offenders. Under this legislation, juvenile courts were prohibited from committing juveniles adjudicated after September 1, 2007, to DJJ unless the adjudication was for certain serious, violent, or sexual offenses.^[1] Non-violent offenders housed at DJJ were transferred back to the counties. And in return, counties were provided with funding.

The Governor’s January Budget in 2020 proposed to transfer DJJ to a newly created independent department within the Health and Human Services Agency on July 1, 2020. That approach was intended to align the rehabilitative mission of the state’s juvenile justice system with trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate services supported by programs overseen by the state’s Health and Human Services Agency. The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 resulted in the withdrawal of this proposal. Subsequently, the May Revision of the Budget proposed to expand on previous efforts to reform the state’s juvenile justice system by transferring the responsibility for managing all youthful offenders to local jurisdictions.

SB 823 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2020, included intent language to establish a secure youth treatment facility as a commitment option for youth adjudicated for DJJ eligible offenses by March 1, 2021. SB 823 closed intake at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on July 1, 2021.

Effective July 1, 2023, all DJJ facilities have closed. (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/juvenile-justice/#:~:text=All%20Division%20of%20Juvenile%20Justice,%2C%202023%2C%20per%20SB%20823.&text=The%20Board%20of%20Juvenile%20Hearings,are%20no%20longer%20being%20accepted)

Secure Youth Treatment Facilities (SYTFs): SYTFs were created as local custodial options for the custody and care of juveniles who would have previously been sent to DJJ but can longer be committed there because of its closure. A minor can only be committed to an SYTF upon adjudication for a 707(b) offense committed at age 14 or older. As under prior law with regards to DJJ commitments, that 707(b) offense must be the most recent offense for which the minor has been adjudicated. (See Welf. & Inst, Code, §§ 875, subd. (a)(2) & 733.)

In committing a ward to an SYTF, the court must set a baseline term of confinement “based on the most serious recent offense for which the ward has been adjudicated. The baseline term of confinement shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the ward and to prepare the ward for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community.” (Welf. & Inst, Code, § 875, subd. (b)(1).) For youth transferred from DJJ and committed to an SYTF, the baseline term of confinement cannot exceed the youth’s projected juvenile parole board date. (Welf. & Inst, Code, § 875, subd. (b)(2).) In making the SYTF commitment, the court must also “set a maximum term of confinement …based upon the facts and circumstances of the matter or matters that brought or continued the ward under the jurisdiction of the court and as deemed appropriate to achieve rehabilitation.” (Welf. & Inst, Code, § 875, subd. (c).) The maximum term of confinement is the longest term a ward may serve, as specified. (Ibid.)

This bill would prohibit a youth who is already committed to an SYTF from being found ineligible for continued commitment to an SYTF as a result of subsequently adjudicated petitions. Presumably, this is directed at non-707(b) offenses, as a subsequent 707(b) adjudication does not render a youth ineligible for an SYTF commitment.

According to the author’s background sheet, “Crimes which predate the commitment but are not discovered or ‘solved’ prior to the commitment cannot be meaningfully adjudicated. For instance, a youth commits a series of burglaries which remain unsolved until after the commitment to SYTF has been made. The adjudication of the burglaries would necessarily be last in time thereby conflicting with current law and would result in the youth being expelled from the SYTF. Simply adjudicating a non-707(b) offense should not result in the otherwise needs based commitment to SYTF.”

Importantly, the creation of SYTFs did not create a new loophole in the law, as the requirement that the most recent offense be a 707(b) offense in order to commit a minor to the most secure placement is not a new concept. It has been the law since 2007. Moreover, when a minor commits subsequent offenses that are not 707(b) offenses, a prosecutor can move to dismiss the lesser charges to maintain the SYTF commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. (See In re J.B. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 410; see also In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393.)

Allowing the subsequent adjudication of non-707(b) offenses for youth already committed to an SYTF raises concerns it would encourage prosecution of minor offenses that are better dealt with via the internal disciplinary process. In particular, as outlined by the Legislature in Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, subdivision (e)(2), this process prohibits extending the baseline confinement time for disciplinary infractions or other in-custody behaviors. “Any infractions or behaviors shall be addressed by alternative means, which may include a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally.” (Ibid.)

Further, under current law, the SYTF baseline term is subject to change at six-month review hearings, when the court may order either that the ward remain in custody for the remainder of the baseline term, modify the term downward, or order that the ward be assigned to a less restrictive program. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(1).) At the conclusion of the baseline confinement term, the court is required to hold a probation discharge hearing, at which the court reviews the ward's progress toward meeting their rehabilitation goals. The court “shall order that the ward be discharged to a period of probation supervision . . ., unless the court finds that the ward constitutes a substantial risk of imminent harm to others in the community if released," in which case the court may retain the ward in custody for an additional year. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (e)(3) [emphasis added].)

In other words, there is already a process in place to address behavioral issues. And if the new offense is another 707(b) offense, adjudicating it does not make the youth ineligible for an SYTF commitment.

This bill would also prohibit a court from increasing the youth’s current baseline term of confinement based on these subsequently adjudicated petitions. So other than allowing additional offenses to be adjudicated against a youth already committed to an SYTF for a significant amount of time, it is hard to see what this bill would actually accomplish.
Argument in Support: According to the District Attorney of Orange County, the sponsor of this bill, “With the passage of SB 823 (2020) and the closure of the Division of Juvenile Justice, many of the criteria by which courts can commit youth adjudicated of offenses to a SYTF - a 707(b) offense - were simply moved over from the code section that was applicable to DJJ, and one does not make sense for placement in a SYTF. The criteria are intended to be a procedural mechanism crafted to prevent youth who are otherwise amenable to less restrictive dispositions from exposure to more intense forms of supervision. However, one specific criteria is not needed for SYTF commitment and otherwise interferes with the meaningful adjudication and rehabilitation of SYTF eligible youth.

Specifically, the requirement stipulates that a youth offender can only be sentenced to a SYTF if their most recent offense is a 707(b) offense, so any offense committed after that cannot be filed to secure a commitment to a SYTF. A minor offender who commits a series of offenses including a 707(b) offense cannot be prosecuted for any of those offenses that occur after in order to preserve a commitment to a SYTF. Crimes which predate the commitment but are not discovered or "solved" prior to the commitment cannot be meaningfully adjudicated. For instance, a youth commits a series of burglaries which remain unsolved until after the commitment to SYTF has been made. The adjudication of the burglaries would necessarily be last in time thereby conflicting with current law and would result in the youth being expelled from the SYTF.

AB 1582 is needed to correct this inaccuracy. The elimination of § 875(a)(2) will not result in an increased number of individuals being committed to SYTF; rather, it will comport with the overall intent of SB 823 fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety, and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment.”
Argument in Opposition: According to the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, “PJDC was pleased to have had a candid conversation with the sponsors of AB 1582 over a month ago, when the current amendments were being contemplated. We appreciate the sponsors and the author’s office amending the bill to more narrowly address the sponsors’ issue of concern: that youth already committed to SYTF should not have a subsequently-adjudicated while the bill laudably has a narrower focus at this time, we believe in its current form it is unnecessary; inconsistent with the goals of the Legislature’s comprehensive scheme for the commitment and housing of youth adjudicated for serious offenses; and fails to address closely related issues relevant to the treatment of youth housed at SYTFs.

First, it is not clear to us that this bill is necessary. None of our members throughout the state have reported that a client has been removed from an SYTF and placed in a less restrictive setting due to an adjudication for a non-§707(b) offense committed while in SYTF custody. One might suggest that that is because prosecutors have declined to file such charges due to the concern that to do so would result in a vacating of the SYTF commitment. But it is not remotely clear that if an adjudication for a non-§707(b) offense were to occur, it would result in the removal of the youth from SYTF. Such a result is counter-intuitive, not required by the statutory scheme, and would find no favor with juvenile bench officers.

Second, even in amended form, the bill causes harm by encouraging the filing of new charges in lieu of alternative methods of resolving low-level in-custody behaviors. Section 875(e)(2) of the Welfare and Institution Code clearly expresses the Legislature’s intent that lower-level problematic behaviors by youth committed to SYTF be handled within the SYTF disciplinary system and the six-month review process.

The ward’s confinement time, including time spent in a less restrictive program described in subdivision (f), shall not be extended beyond the baseline confinement term, or beyond a modified baseline term, for disciplinary infractions or other in-custody behaviors. Any infractions or behaviors shall be addressed by alternative means, which may include a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally.

(Welf. & Inst. Code, §875, subd. (e)(2).) In addition to this clear and recent expression of legislative intent, the six-month review process codified in section 875(e)(1) and rule 5.807(c) of the California Rules of Court also provides robust, regular opportunities for the juvenile court to evaluate a youth’s in-custody behavior and to deny reductions of the baseline term if the youth has been involved in problematic behaviors while at SYTF, including non-§707(b) criminal behaviors such as getting into a fight. This amendment would instead encourage the formal prosecution of such low-level offenses.

Third, AB 1582 fails to address a related issue which, based on reports from our members, is quite real: the filing of criminal charges against SYTF youth who are over 18 and who engage in low-level behaviors that can be prosecuted in adult court. We have heard reports of prosecutors in some jurisdictions filing low-level criminal charges against SYTF youth instead of allowing that misconduct to be handled within the SYTF disciplinary system. For example, a fight can result in an adult misdemeanor battery charge, which causes the youth to be removed from SYTF and placed in county jail, thereby disrupting the rehabilitative SYTF commitment. Our current statutory scheme would greatly benefit from clarification that a judicial officer could order a youth remain at SYTF even if the youth has been charged with a criminal offense. This bill does not address that issue, only focusing on youth under 18 – a fraction of the youth at SYTFs statewide -- who commit prosecutable offenses while in custody.

As stated, we appreciated meeting with AB 1582’s sponsors and sharing our concerns. We also believe there are opportunities for robust collaboration around improvement of the SYTF framework. Unfortunately, we do not believe AB 1582 is the appropriate vehicle to do so.”

Prior Legislation:
1. SB 92 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 18, Statutes of 2021, closes DJJ on June 30, 2023, and allows counties to establish SYTFs for certain youth who are 14 years of age or older and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense that would have resulted in a commitment to DJJ.
2. SB 823 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2020, transferred the responsibility for managing all youthful offenders to local jurisdictions and closed DJJ intake on July 1, 2021, subject to certain exceptions. SB 823 also stated legislative intent to establish a separate, long-term local dispositional track for higher-need youth.
3. SB 439 (Mitchell), Chapter 1006, Statutes of 2018, prohibited the prosecution of children under the age of 12 years in the juvenile court, except when a minor is alleged to have committed murder or specified sex offenses.
4. SB 1021 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012, prohibited the extension of a ward’s parole consideration date and authorized CDCR to promulgate regulations establishing a process for granting wards who have successfully responded to disciplinary sanctions a reduction of any time acquired for disciplinary matters.
5. SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, known as juvenile justice realignment, limited the juvenile offenders who could be committed to state youth correctional facilities.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Orange County District Attorney (Sponsor)

California District Attorneys Association (Co-Sponsor)

Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC)

Riverside County District Attorney

Opposition

ACLU California Action

Anti Recidivism Coalition

Asian Prisoner Support Committee

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Children's Defense Fund - CA

Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ)

Criminal Justice Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Equal Justice Society

Fresno Barrios Unidos

Fresno County Public Defender's Office

Funding the Next Generation

Haywood Burns Institute

Human Rights Watch

Initiate Justice Action

Instituto Familiar De LA Raza

Milpa (motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement)

Occupational Therapy Training Program (OTTP-SF)

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Public Counsel

San Diego Public Defender

San Francisco Public Defender

San Mateo County Bar Association, Private Defender Program

Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos INC.

Sigma Beta Xi, INC. (sbx Youth and Family Services)

Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy

Young Community Developers

Youth Justice Education Clinic, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School

3 Private Individuals

Analysis Prepared by:

Cheryl Anderson / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

These offenses are referred to as 707(b) offenses because that is the statute in which they are listed. ↑

Date of Hearing:

Chief Counsel: Sandy Uribe

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1582

Author:(Dixon) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2023

SUMMARY:

Eliminates the requirement that a juvenile’s most recent offense be one of the violent/serious offenses enumerated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) in order for that juvenile to be committed to a secure youth treatment facility.

EXISTING LAW:

Provides that a juvenile court ward who meets any of the following conditions shall not be committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ):
1. The ward is less than 11 years old;
2. The ward is suffering from a contagious, infectious, or other disease that would probably endanger the lives or health of the other minors in the facility; or,
3. The ward most recent offense is not one listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) (hereinafter 707(b) offense). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.)
Provides that on or after July 1, 2021, a ward of the juvenile court shall not be committed to the DJJ, except as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 733.1.)
States that the DJJ shall close on June 30, 2023. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 736.5, subd. (e).)
Defines “secure youth treatment facility” as a secure facility that is operated, utilized, or accessed by the county of commitment to provide appropriate programming, treatment, and education for wards having been adjudicated for specified offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (g)(1).)
Provides that, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility if the ward meets all of the following criteria:
1. The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on a 707(b) offense that was committed when the ward was 14 years of age or older;
2. The 707(b) offense is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated; and,
3. The court has made a finding on the record that a less restrictive alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (a).)
Enumerates 30 serious and violent offenses which permit a juvenile to be transferred to adult court, or be admitted to a secure youth treatment facility, and previously to DJJ. These include: murder, arson, robbery, specified sex crimes committed by force, specified forms of kidnapping, attempted murder, carjacking, aggravated mayhem, voluntary manslaughter, a felony offense in which the minor personally used a weapon, and others. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

Author's Statement: According to the author, “There are a series of criteria that must be met in order for a juvenile to be committed to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF). AB 1582 would remove the requirement that the triggering offense be the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. AB 1582 is needed to correct inaccuracy in current code. The elimination of §875(a)(2) will not result in an increased number of individuals being committed to SYTF, rather, it will comport with the overall intent of SB 823 fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment.”
Juvenile Justice Realignment in California: Historically CDCR’s DJJ housed the majority of the state’s juvenile offenders with the number of juveniles housed in these facilities exceeding 15,000 in the 1990’s. In 2003, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, Farrell v. Hickman (originally Farrell v. Harper), alleging that CDCR was providing inadequate care for minors housed in its facilities. In January 2005, the state and plaintiffs entered into an agreement which committed reforming the state’s juvenile justice system to a rehabilitative model.

In 2007, the Legislature passed SB 81, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, known as juvenile justice realignment. The premise was that local authorities were better able than the State to provide rehabilitation for many juvenile offenders. Under this legislation, juvenile courts were prohibited from committing juveniles adjudicated after September 1, 2007, to DJJ unless the adjudication was for certain serious, violent, or sexual offenses.^[1] Non-violent offenders housed at DJJ were transferred back to the counties. And in return, counties were provided with funding.

The Governor’s January Budget in 2020 proposed to transfer DJJ to a newly created independent department within the Health and Human Services Agency on July 1, 2020. That approach was intended to align the rehabilitative mission of the state’s juvenile justice system with trauma-informed and developmentally appropriate services supported by programs overseen by the state’s Health and Human Services Agency. The unprecedented impact of COVID-19 resulted in the withdrawal of this proposal. Subsequently, the May Revision of the Budget proposed to expand on previous efforts to reform the state’s juvenile justice system by transferring the responsibility for managing all youthful offenders to local jurisdictions.

SB 823 included intent language to establish a secure youth treatment facility as a commitment option for youth adjudicated for DJJ eligible offenses by March 1, 2021. SB 823 closed intake at the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) on July 1, 2021.

DJJ is scheduled to be closed on June 30, 2023.

Secure Youth Treatment Facilities (SYTFs): SYTFs were created as local custodial options for the custody and care of juveniles who would have previously been sent to DJJ but can longer be committed there because of its closure. A minor can only be committed to an SYTF upon adjudication for a 707(b) offense committed at age 14 or older. As under prior law with regards to DJJ commitments, that 707(b) offense must be the most recent offense for which the minor has been adjudicated. (See Welf. & Inst, Code, §§ 875, subd. (a)(2) & 733.)

This bill would delete the requirement that the most recent offense be a 707(b) offense and instead only require that the minor have been adjudicated on a 707(b) offense at some point. The author’s background information for this bill contends that “many of the criteria were simply moved over from the code section that was applicable to DJJ, and one [the most recent offense requirement] does not make sense for placement in a SYTF. Such criteria are not needed for SYTF commitment and otherwise interfere with the meaningful adjudication and rehabilitation of SYTF eligible youth.”

Notwithstanding this assertion, the Legislature did not simply “move over” the DJJ criteria and apply it to SYTF commitments; other criterion for placement in the most secure custodial settings was changed. For example, whereas a minor could be sent to DJJ at age 11 and older, now SYFT placement is limited to minors 14 years of age or older. (Compare Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 733 & 875.) Moreover, previously with a DJJ commitment there was no mechanism for moving youth to a less restrictive program once that person was committed to DJJ, as was added for placements at SYTFs. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 875, subd. (f); see also Welf. & Inst. Code, § 779.5.) Requiring that the most recent adjudication was for a 707(b) offense was deliberate and is consistent with the intent of juvenile justice realignment. SB 823 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 337, Statutes of 2020 stated, among other things that it was the intent of the Legislature and the administration to “ensure that dispositions are in the least restrictive appropriate environment, … and reduce the use of confinement in the juvenile justice system by utilizing community-based responses and interventions.”

The author’s background sheet also states “Specifically, one requirement stipulates that a youth offender can only be sentenced to a SYTF if their most recent offense is a 707(b) offense, so any offense committed after that cannot be filed to secure a commitment to a SYTF. A minor offender who commits a series of offenses including a 707(b) offense cannot be prosecuted for any of those offenses that occur after in order to preserve a commitment to a SYTF.”

However, the creation of SYTFs did not create some new loophole in the law, as the requirement that the most recent offense be a 707(b) offense in order to commit a minor to the most secure placement is not a new concept. It has been the law since 2007. Moreover, when a minor commits subsequent offenses that are not 707(b) offenses, a prosecutor can move to dismiss the lesser charges to maintain the SYTF commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. (See In re J.B. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 410; see also In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393.)

Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, a co-sponsor of this bill, “The SYTF is reserved for minor’s who commit the most serious crimes and who demonstrate that their behavior cannot be remediated in a less-restrictive environment. This bill gives the courts the option to place a minor who continues re-offending into a more restrictive facility even if their most recent crime is not listed under WIC 707(b).

“Currently, a juvenile who commits one of the enumerated WIC 707(b) crimes - including murder, attempted murder, robbery, or a forced sexual assault - and then subsequently commits a non-707(b) crime – including domestic violence battery, violation of a restraining order, or possession of a loaded gun - cannot be sentenced to the SYTF. Your bill ensures that a victim of a crime will be protected under the law and that a juvenile offender will be held accountable in an appropriate facility.”

Argument in Opposition: According to the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, “AB 1582 would amend Welfare & Institutions Code (‘WIC’) section 875 by eliminating the requirement that a youth’s most recent adjudicated offense must be listed in WIC section 707(b) in order for the youth to be eligible for commitment to a secure youth treatment facility (‘SYTF’). This change runs counter to more than sixteen years of juvenile justice realignment in California, and it flies in the face of the evidence-based principles and legislative intent underlying this realignment.

“As the people of the State of California have formally recognized, ‘Evidence has demonstrated that justice system-involved youth are more successful when they remain connected to their families and communities. Justice system-involved youth who remain in their communities have lower recidivism rates and are more prepared for their transition back into the community.’ Based on this solid evidentiary foundation, the Legislature has clearly stated its intent that counties ‘ensure that [juvenile justice] dispositions are in the least restrictive appropriate environment … and reduce the use of confinement in the juvenile justice system.’ Existing law manifests these foundational principles by limiting the most restrictive consequence in juvenile court (SYTF commitment) to the most serious cases (those in which a minor has most recently committed a serious offense, as defined in WIC section 707(b)).

“The provision in question has existed from the very beginning of the juvenile justice

realignment process in Senate Bill 81 (2007), and has been reaffirmed at every step throughout multiple amendments and changes in the law over the past 16 years. This ‘most recent offense’ requirement manifests a clear intention to avoid committing youth to long-term confinement (previously at the Division of Juvenile Justice, now at SYTFs) based on a less serious offense simply because they have committed a WIC section 707(b) offense at some point in the past. Adolescent development and rehabilitation are ongoing and imperfect processes, and existing law rightfully accounts for this by looking to the nature of the most recent offense to determine the permissible range of dispositions.

“AB 1582 disregards this legislative history and the evidence and intent behind it. By

eliminating the longstanding ‘most recent offense’ requirement, this bill would render a greater number of youth eligible for highly restrictive SYTF commitments, which will lead to an increase in the use of confinement in our juvenile justice system. This abrupt reversal of course would move in direct opposition to the evidence-based juvenile justice reforms the Legislature has enacted over the past 16 years. It will result in a greater number of children being removed from their families and communities and confined in locked facilities during the crucial years of adolescent development.”

Related Legislation: SB 448 (Becker), would prohibit the juvenile court to make a determination to detain a minor based on the minor’s county of residence. SB 448 will be heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee today.
Prior Legislation:
1. SB 92 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 18, Statutes of 2021, closes DJJ on June 30, 2023, and allows counties to establish secure youth treatment facilities for certain youth who are 14 years of age or older and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense that would have resulted in a commitment to DJJ.
2. SB 823 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 337, Statutes of 2020, transferred the responsibility for managing all youthful offenders to local jurisdictions and closed DJJ intake on July 1, 2021, subject to certain exceptions. SB 823 also stated legislative intent to establish a separate, long-term local dispositional track for higher-need youth.
3. SB 439 (Mitchell), Chapter 1006, Statutes of 2018, prohibited the prosecution of children under the age of 12 years in the juvenile court, except when a minor is alleged to have committed murder or specified sex offenses.
4. SB 1021 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 41, Statutes of 2012, prohibited the extension of a ward’s parole consideration date and authorized CDCR to promulgate regulations establishing a process for granting wards who have successfully responded to disciplinary sanctions a reduction of any time acquired for disciplinary matters.
5. SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007, known as juvenile justice realignment, limited the juvenile offenders who could be committed to state youth correctional facilities.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association (Co-Sponsor)

Chief Probation Officers' of California

Riverside County District Attorney

Opposition

Anti Recidivism Coalition

Asian Prisoner Support Committee

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Children's Defense Fund - CA

Commonweal Juvenile Justice Program

Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice

Criminal Justice Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law

Equal Justice Society

Fresno Barrios Unidos

Fresno County Public Defender's Office

Haywood Burns Institute

Human Rights Watch

Instituto Familiar De LA Raza

MILPA (motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement)

Pacific Juvenile Defender Center

Public Counsel

San Diego Public Defender

San Francisco Public Defender

Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos INC.

Sigma Beta Xi, INC. (SBX Youth and Family Services)

Young Community Developers

Youth Justice Education Clinic, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School

Analysis Prepared by:

Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

These offenses are referred to as 707(b) offenses because that is the statute in which they are listed. ↑

Discussed in Hearing

17MIN

Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

View Older Hearings

Authors shown for version:
Amended Assembly (1/3/2024)

AB 1582: Secure youth treatment facilities.

Current Status:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1582

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1582

Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety