Chief Probation Officers of California Officers President Chief Mark Varela Ventura County President Elect Chief Mark J. Bonini Amador County Treasurer Chief Jerry Powers Los Angeles County Secretary Chief Mary Butler Napa County Legislative Chair Chief Philip Kader Contra Costa County Past Presidents Chief Jerry Powers Los Angeles County Chief Steve Bordin Butte County Chief Mack Jenkins San Diego County Chief Michael Daly Marin County Bay Region Chair Chief John Keene San Mateo County Central Region Chair Chief Jill Silva Stanislaus County North Region Chair Chief Steve Bordin Butte County Sacramento Region Chair Chief Michael Ertola Nevada County South Region Chair Chief Steven J. Sentman Orange County Executive Director Karen A. Pank Deputy Director Rosemary Lamb McCool March 27, 2015 The Honorable Senator Leno California State Senate State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Senate Bill 124 – CPOC Oppose Dear Senator Leno: On behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), we write in opposition to SB 124 which defines and creates requirements for solitary confinement of minors in state and local detention facilities. We acknowledge and share your intent to ensure that juveniles are safely and appropriately housed in detention facilities. The primary principles of Probation Juvenile Detention and Commitment Facilities in California are to provide a safe environment for youth and staff, to create opportunities for positive outcomes, and to encourage youth to work toward rehabilitation and reintegration after custody. The practice evoked by the discussion on solitary confinement is not used in the 49 California counties in which probation departments operate Juvenile Detention and Commitment Facilities. Operationally, there are instances in a juvenile detention and commitment facility where, for the safety and security of the youth residing in the facility, separation from the general population is necessary. The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) has regulations that govern the practice of “separation” under Juvenile Title 15 Regulations and Definitions. These regulations are reviewed approximately every four years with a broad, inclusive set of stakeholders including, but not limited to: probation institution administrators, youth advocate groups, pediatricians, mental health professionals, juvenile justice commissions and others. The Title 15 regulations on separation were most recently revised and made effective in April 2014. The April 2014 revision reflects the importance probation departments place on the careful, infrequent use of separation. It is also important to note existing policies require that there is continuous supervision and documentation of the youth’s behavior and any staff interventions every 15 minutes to ensure the safety and security of the minor along with appropriate mental health and medical treatment. Legislative Director Danielle Sanchez Chief Probation Officers of California 1415 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-2762 ▪ Fax (916) 442-0850 Adding additional statutory requirements for a practice that does not occur in county juvenile halls not only creates a misperception about existing – and highly regulated – separation practices utilized for the safety and security of youth, but it also complicates the Title 15 regulatory structure on “separation” by setting forth differing operational requirements. In addition to the concerns noted above relative to how the requirements set forth in this bill would intersect with existing separation regulations, there are a number of operational concerns. First, the definition of solitary confinement is very broad and can be assumed to pertain to any youth who is in their room and not in contact with other minors. For example, the definition does not take into account youth who, at their request, want to stay in their room or youth who are sick and are resting in their rooms. While it is referenced later in the bill, it is important that the definition address the ability to use single-person rooms for housing purposes. Second, the language included on page four pertaining to mental health evaluations presents several difficulties for departments. Not only does this language put probation in the position of making mental health determinations, but it requires the transport to a designated facility for evaluation. Many, if not most, counties do not have these types of facilities or beds available. Very few 5150 beds exist for juveniles across the State. Therefore, departments would be put in an onerous situation to transport the minor to a facility that could be hundreds of miles away. Lastly, while we recognize the sponsor’s desire to add additional members to the juvenile justice commission, the inclusion of parents of currently incarcerated youth on the commission poses a conflict with their duties. These commissions are responsible for inspecting facilities used for the confinement of a minor and monitoring compliance with established standards, among other duties. It presents a conflict to have a parent of a currently incarcerated minor in a position of objective review and oversight of the very facility in which their child resides. We appreciate your willingness to engage in a dialogue with CPOC on this very important issue. We look forward to continued discussions with you, but for the reasons previously stated, we regrettably must oppose your measure at this time. Sincerely, Danielle Sanchez Legislative Director Cc: All Members and Staff of the Senate Public Safety Committee Eric Csizmar, Republican Consultant