BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    SB 124        Hearing Date:    April 7, 2015    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Leno                                                 |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |January 16, 2015                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|LT                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                     Subject:  Juveniles:  solitary confinement



          HISTORY

          Source:   Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

          Prior Legislation:SB 1363 (Yee) (2012) - failed passage, Senate  
          Public Safety
                              SB 61 (Yee) (2013) - died in the Assembly 
                              SB 970 (Yee) (2014) - died in the Senate


          Support:  Youth Law Center; Legal Services for Children;  
                    American Civil Liberties Union; Lawyers' Committee for  
                    Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal  
                    Services for Prisoners with Children; Peace Over  
                    Violence; GSA Network; Friends Committee on  
                    Legislation of California; Violence Prevention  
                    Coalition; Children Now; Fair Chance Project; Center  
                    for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings;  
                    Nollie Jenkins Family Center; Wilks Law; Los Angeles  
                    Community Action Network; American Friends Service  
                    Committee; Californians United for a Responsible  
                    Budget; Children's Defense Fund; Forward Together; The  
                    W. Haywood Burns Institute; National Center for Youth  
                    Law; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; A  
                    New Way of Life Re-Entry Project; Urban Peace  
                    Movement; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice;  







          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageB  
          of?
          
                    Children's Law Center of California; Resurrection  
                    Catholic Community; Riverside Temple Beth El; Bend the  
                    Arc for Justice; Human Rights Watch; California Civil  
                    Liberties Council; Alameda County Board of  
                    Supervisors; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice;  
                    National Religious Campaign Against Torture; Manifest  
                    Works; Conference of California Bar Associations;  
                    Coalition for Engaged Education; Aptos Temple Beth El;  
                    Fair Chance Project; Starting Over Inc.; Public  
                    Counsel; California Council of Churches IMPACT;  
                    California Public Defenders Association; Policy Link;  
                    Office of Restorative Justice of the Archdiocese of  
                    Los Angeles; Drug Policy Alliance; National  
                    Association of Black Social Workers; Harvey Milk LGBT  
                    Democratic Club; The Association of Black  
                    Psychologists; California Catholic Conference, Inc.;  
                    Rosie the Riveter High School Youth Build; Every Child  
                    Foundation; California Immigrant Policy Center;  
                    California Families Against Solitary Confinement;  
                    Justice Not Jails; Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity;  
                    California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California  
                    Alliance for Youth and Community Justice; Mental  
                    Research Institute; Life After Uncivil Ruthless Acts;  
                    several individuals

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

                                                


          PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to 1) establish standards and  
          protocols for the use of solitary confinement in state and local  
          juvenile facilities for the confinement of delinquent wards, as  
          specified; and 2) make changes to the composition and duties of  
          local juvenile justice commissions, as specified.
          
          Existing law provides generally that the purpose of the juvenile  
          court law "is to provide for the
          protection and safety of the public and each minor under the  
          jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and  
          strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing  








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageC  
          of?
          
          the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when  
          necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and  
          protection of the public.  If removal of a minor is determined  
          by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the  
          minor with his or her family shall be a primary objective.  If  
          the minor is removed from his or her own family, it is the  
          purpose of this chapter to secure for the minor custody, care,  
          and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which  
          should have been given by his or her parents . . . ` . . .    
          Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court who are in  
          need of protective services shall receive care, treatment, and  
          guidance consistent with their best interest and the best  
          interest of the public.  Minors under the jurisdiction of the  
          juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in  
          conformity with the interests of public safety and protection,  
          receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with  
          their best interest, that holds them accountable for their  
          behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances . . .   
          (Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") § 202.) 
           
           Existing law provides that minors under the age of 18 years may  
          be adjudged to be a ward of the court for violating "any law of  
          this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city  
          or county of this state defining crime," as specified.  (WIC §  
          602.)  

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

          Existing law authorizes the court to place a ward of the court  
          in a juvenile hall, ranch, camp, forestry camp, secure juvenile  
          home, or the Division of Juvenile Facilities, as specified.   
          (WIC§ 726.)
          
          Confinement of Detained Minors
          
          Existing law requires the Board of State and Community  
          Corrections ("BSCC") to "adopt minimum standards for the  
          operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement  
          of minors."  (WIC § 210.)








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageD  
          of?
          

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


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

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

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

           (1)A juvenile hall, as described in Section 850;

           (2)A juvenile camp or ranch;

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

           (4)A regional youth educational facility, as specified;

           (5)A youth correctional center, as specified; and

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

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

           (1)A person under 18 years of age;









          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageE  
          of?
          
           (2)A person under the maximum age of juvenile court  
             jurisdiction who is confined in a juvenile facility; or

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

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

          Limits on Solitary Confinement

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

          Standards for Solitary Confinement Placement and Duration

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

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



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

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

          Standards During Solitary Confinement
           
           This bill would provide that "solitary confinement" be done in  
          accordance with the following guidelines:








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageF  
          of?
          

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

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

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

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

          (1) The name of the person subject to solitary confinement;
          (2) The date and time the person was placed in solitary  
          confinement;
          (3) The date and time the person was released from solitary  
          confinement;
          (4) The name and position of person authorizing the placement of  
          the person in solitary 
                confinement;
          (5) The names of staff involved in the incident leading to the  
          use of solitary confinement;
          (6) A description of circumstances leading to use of solitary  
          confinement;








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageG  
          of?
          
          (7) A description of alternative actions and sanctions attempted  
          and found unsuccessful;   
               and,
          (8) The dates and times when staff checked in on the person when  
          he or she was in 
               solitary confinement and the person's behavior during the  
          check.

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

          Miscellaneous

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

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

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

          Local and Regional Juvenile Justice Commissions

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

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

          Existing law provides that in lieu of county juvenile justice  
          commissions, the board of supervisors of two or more adjacent  
          counties may agree to establish a regional juvenile justice  








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageH  
          of?
          
          commission consisting of not less than eight citizens. 

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

          Existing law provides that two or more of the members shall be  
          persons who are between 14 and 21 years of age, provided there  
          are available persons between 14 and 21 years of age who are  
          able to carry out the duties of a commission member in a manner  
          satisfactory to the appointing authority.
          This bill would require two or more of the members to be 14 to  
          21 years of age, inclusive.  Two or more of the members shall be  
          parents or guardians of previously or currently incarcerated  
          youth. One member shall be a licensed psychiatrist, licensed  
          psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker, with expertise  
          in adolescent development. 

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

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

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

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

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

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageI  
          of?
          

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

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


                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

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

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

           143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
           141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
           137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageJ  
          of?
          
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

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

          Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to  
             reducing the prison
                  population; 
          Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or  
             criminal activity for which
                  there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy; 
          Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
             dangerous to the physical safety 
                  of others for which there is no other reasonably  
             appropriate sanction;
          Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
             legislative drafting error; and
          Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate,  
             and cannot be achieved 
                  through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.




          COMMENTS

          1. Author's Amendments

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

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageK  
          of?
          
            at the juvenile facility and the person continues to pose a  
            risk of harm, the juvenile facility shall transport the person  
            to a mental health facility.

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

        Revise the bill's provisions to add age, race, and gender to the  
          criteria for documentation on
                the use of solitary confinement.

          2. Stated Need for This Bill

          The author states:

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

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

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageL  
          of?
          
          hall for youth placed in solitary for 23 hours a day in a 12 by  
          12 foot cell and denied education as punishment.

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

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

          3. What This Bill Would Do

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

          4. Isolating Juvenile Offenders

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

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageM  
          of?
          
          punishment that may compromise the physical or mental  
          health of the juvenile concerned.

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



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

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












          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageN  
          of?
          
          and 62 percent of victims had a history of isolation.<1>

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

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

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

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


          5. Current Laws and Regulations - Local Facilities
          ---------------------------

          <1>    
           http://www.njisj.org/document/testimonyyouthdetention-9-16-05.pdf 
           . (citations omitted.)
          <2>   ACLU and Human Rights Watch, Growing Up Locked Down: Youth  
          in Solitary Confinement in Jails and Prisons Across the United  
          States (Oct. 2012.)






          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageO  
          of?
          

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

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

          Current regulations further provide:

          The facility administrator shall develop written policies  
          and procedures for the discipline of minors that shall  
          promote acceptable behavior.  Discipline shall be imposed  
          at the least restrictive level which promotes the desired  
          behavior.  Discipline shall not include corporal  
          punishment, group punishment, physical or psychological  
          degradation or deprivation of the following:
            
          (a) bed and bedding;
          (b) daily shower, access to drinking fountain, toilet and  
          personal hygiene items, and clean clothing;
          (c) full nutrition;
          (d) contact with parent or attorney;
          (e) exercise;
          (f) medical services and counseling;
          (g) religious services;
          (h) clean and sanitary living conditions;
          (i) the right to send and receive mail; and,
          (j) education.

          The facility administrator shall establish rules of conduct  
          and disciplinary penalties to guide the conduct of minors.   
          Such rules and penalties shall include both major  
          violations and minor violations, be stated simply and  
          affirmatively, and be made available to all minors.   


          -------------------------
          <3>   15 CCR § 1354.







          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageP  
          of?
          
          Provision shall be made to provide the information to  
          minors who are impaired, illiterate or do not speak  
          English.<4>

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

          6. Division of Juvenile Facilities 

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

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






          -------------------------
          <4>   15 CCR 1390.











          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageQ  
          of?
          
          month-and-a-half I did that.<5>

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

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

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

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

          There have been significant reductions in the reliance on  
          solitary confinement in DJJ since 2005.  The older and  
          discredited policy and practice of confining youth in a lockup  
          unit for 23 hours a day with minimal services is gone.  In its  
          ---------------------------
          <5>   Transcript, Joint Oversight Hearing of the Senate and  
          Assembly Committees on Public Safety Regarding the California  
          Department of the Youth Authority, (May 16, 2000.)  
          (  http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/jointinformationalhearingon   
          thecaliforniayouthauthoritymay162000.)
          <6>  Id.







          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageR  
          of?
          
          place, the DJJ has developed a range of options that constitute  
          a short term limitation on the program of youth who are in some  
          kind of crisis and who may be a danger to themselves or others.   
          These alternatives include a very short term "cool down period  
          in the youngster's room (or in a separate room) in those few  
          remaining dormitory units.  Another option for staff is to  
          utilize "room confinement" in which the youth stays in their own  
          room, usually for less than a day. Youth needing more  
          specialized attention are managed in the Treatment Intervention  
          Program (TIP) that is designed to last only a few days. 

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

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

          Before the Farrell reforms took hold, the DJJ lockup units had  
          as many as 400 youth on any given day and the length of stay was  
          at least 270 days.  In the "bad old days" the lockup units  








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageS  
          of?
          
          included a wide range of youth who had engaged in serious  
          assaults, had defied staff orders, evidenced severe mental  
          health issues, or were in the lockup unit in protective custody.  
           The BTP is now almost reserved exclusively for very assaultive  
          young people and the DJJ uses its other programming options for  
          other young people in the BTPs markedly improved.

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






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

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








          SB 124  (Leno )                                           PageT  
          of?
          
               expected standards of behavior, of staff, and would  
               compromise the programming of the general ward  
               population. 

          Similarly, The State Coalition of Probation Organizations  
          submits:

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

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

          Local Juvenile Justice Commissions

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

                                      -- END -