Children who happen to be in both the children services and the juvenile criminal justice systems are called the Dual Status children. A child in any of the two systems will usually have a diminished chance of having a fruitful future. However, when a child is in both systems, the chances for a good future reduce (Davis, Sheidow & McCart, 2015). There is, therefore, a need for measures to be put in place to ensure that the Dual Status children are accorded a better chance to succeed in future. AB-1911 is an Act enacted by the parliament of the great state of California in 2016, to cater for such children. Under this Act, the child services department and the Juvenile justice department ought to coordinate for the sake of the Dual Status Children (California Legislative Information, 2018).
The title of the referenced Act is the AB-1911 Dual status minors (2015-2016). It is cited as: “ An act to repeal and add Section 241.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles ” (California Legislative Information, 2018). Under the old system, professionals would develop protocols on how Dual Status youth would be handled by the respective systems. Under the new system, all professionals associated with the juvenile justice system and the child services system in the public and private sector will form a singular taskforce. The mandate of the taskforce will be to track down and keep a record of all Dual Status youths with a view to establish how best to assist them to make the best out of themselves in their future lives. The tracking will be based in a variety of parameters which include “ recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment, and education ” (California Legislative Information, 2018). It is important to note that the parameters above are critical to what kind of a future a youth will have, in spite of gender.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Social Problem Being Handled
The social problem being handled by AB-1911 is the negative impact that the environment in which a child grows has on their future. In the instant case, the environment in focus is a combination of child services system and the juvenile justice system. Children end up in the child services system for a variety of negative issues such as parental incarceration, death, or neglect (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013). They enter into the juvenile justice system when they are declared delinquent, having committed a substantial criminal offense. A child who is in the former system is highly likely to end up in the latter. When a child is in both systems any good future is in jeopardy (Davis, Sheidow & McCart, 2015). The instant policy seeks to mitigate this jeopardy in the interest of the child’s future.
Context for Change
The context for change below is based on the presence of evidence that sociological theories of crime apply in juvenile crimes and crimes committed by delinquents in the subsequent adulthood. Under the strain theory, the social structure within a community can cause crimes to be committed (Hirschi, 2017). When a child is placed in the child services system, such as a foster home, a slippery slope concept is triggered. The child will most likely become delinquent and eventually an adult criminal or at the very least, not a very successful adult. The change is meant to break the slippery slope cycle, at the moment when the child, who has already been placed on child services is first declared delinquent.
If it is Larger Reform
The current policy change is part of a larger process of reform, as it is meant to replace and improve on another policy that was in place to handle the same segment of the populace. Under the old policy, the fate of Dual Status children and youths was to be handled jointly by the probation department and the child welfare services department. The two departments would jointly develop a protocol to be used in handling the children. Under the new system, however, all stakeholders including lawyers and judges would work together as a single entity to handle the problem. The scope of the problem to be handled has also been specified to be holistic in nature, hence providing more assistance to the child ( Lightbourne, 2017 ) .
Why the Topic Was Chosen
Dual Status children are among the most disadvantaged in the community (Vida et al., 2017). This fact informed the selection of a topic that deals specifically with them. For a child to end up in the child services system, the world has already failed the child in more than one way. Children whose parents cannot take care of them for a variety of reasons have the option of being assisted by friends and relatives (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013). They end up in the system when the friends and relatives are either unwilling or incapable of taking care of them. When these children become delinquent, they then lose the sympathy card they may have gotten by being in the system (Vida et al., 2017). It is easy for the world to give up on these children hence the need to focus on them and their respective futures.
Part II: Key Elements of the Legislative Decision-making Process
Decision-Making Body
AB-1911 was introduced to the state legislature of California by Susan Eggman, a Democratic Party member of the assembly. After being canvassed as provided for by the standing orders of the California State Assembly, it was enacted into law. Upon enactment, it was passed on to the state Senate where it was passed with only slight amendment. After that, the Bill was then presented to the Governor of California Jerry Brown who signed it into law and then to the Secretary of State who chaptered it. It then became officially known as CHAPTER 637 of the laws of California (California Legislative Information, 2018).
Most Relevant Parts of the Policy
There are two extremely important and relevant parts of the policy. The first relates to whom the obligation of tracking Dual Status youths has been bequeathed. The policy creates a joint panel that brings together individuals with great wealth in knowledge and experience (California Legislative Information, 2018). This panel consist of children’s officers who have been handling the children in the system, lawyers who represent them in court, judges who handle their cases, and probation officers who help them as they traverse the legal labyrinth. Each of the experts above brings a special input that will help the children. The second critical aspect is the multidimensional tracking system that has been suggested. The tracking includes elements such as “ recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment, and education ” (California Legislative Information, 2018). These dimensions cover different aspects of the minor, such as if they commit further crimes, morality, whether they get a good training, and their physical, and mental health statuses. The wide tracking will enable the establishment of better terms to assist the children (Vida et al., 2017).
Legislative Process from Idea to Enactment
On the 11 th day of February 2016, the Bill was presented to the State Assembly by Susan Eggman and read for the first time. On March 17 th it was referred to review by the relevant committees (LegiScan LLC, 2018). After amending and re-amending at the committee stage, the Bill was once again presented to the main chamber for a second reading on the 5 th day of May 2016. Six days later, it was read a third time, whereupon it got a positive vote hence passed and was subsequently referred to the Senate. The first Senate reading was on the 12 th day of June leading to a referral to the respective committees (LegiScan LLC, 2018). By 15 th August, the necessary amendments had taken place paving way for a second reading. A third reading and a positive vote took place on 18 th August. Due to the amendments, the Bill was then referred back to the State Assembly. The State Assembly reviewed and approved amendments by the Senate on the 30 th day of August 2016, which is the day that the act was finally enacted. Both the governor’s signature and the chaptering happened in the 26 th day of September 2016, making the Bill part of the Californian law (LegiScan LLC, 2018). Based on the above, the bill sailed swiftly through the legislative process with no substantive barriers.
Status of the Bill
The bill has been enacted into law. The intended outcome of the Bill for a substantive report was presented by the 1 st day of January 2018 leading to a case management system being put in place by the 1 st day of January 2019. Pursuant to the act, a task force dubbed the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee: Dual-Status Youth Data Standards Working Group was developed. It came up with reports dubbed the “Crossover Youth a Shared Responsibility” with the name ‘crossover’ being used in place of ‘dual status’ youth. Preparation of the final system is currently pending ( Lightbourne, 2017 ) .
Proponents
The project created based on the policy has primary and secondary proponents and no opponents. The primary proponents are the professionals from all the counties in California involved in the child service and juvenile justice systems. Secondary proponents include not-for-profit organizations and interest groups that support children and youth causes in California ( Lightbourne, 2017 ) . Based on the letter of the report, it has received massive support from all stakeholders.
Budget/Fiscal Impact
As at now, a fiscal budget for the program has not been arrived at. As per the report, the onus was passed on to the representatives of all the 67 counties in California to develop the relevant budgets for their respective counties with regard to the program ( Lightbourne, 2017 ) . Being a long-term project, budgets will most likely be set on an annual basis, depending on the numbers of crossover youths from 2019. Funds will be necessary to cater for rehabilitation, healthcare needs, education, and vocational training for the affected youths.
Part III: Impact or Outcomes
Meeting Goals
The program will be commencing in January 2019 and based on available research, it is bound to meet its goals. The dimensions covered by the report as presented by the task force including recidivism, health, pregnancy, homelessness, employment, and education are essential to the potential future well-being or failure of the Dual Status youths. If all areas are covered and the youths assisted accordingly, they will be able to overcome their past adversities and make a good future for themselves (Locke, 2017; Lee et al., 2017).
Social Worker Involvement
Many parties may have been involved in the processes outlined in the policy up to the commencement of the project in 2019, but it is the social worker who shall bring it to fruition. Social workers will need to create a close professional relationship with the Dual Status youths, assist them make the right choices in life, and enable then take advantage of the available programs. Social workers will also be needed to monitor the progress of the youths within the program. The assistance offered by social workers will be invaluable for the youths, irrespective of their gender and age, as they make the transition from being delinquent children and becoming responsible and respectable adults (Locke, 2017) .
Progress and Expectation
The report that was sought by the enacted law has already been prepared and published. Respective counties are currently working on their budgets even as the state level works on the initiation of the project. As per the law, the project is expected to be launched in January 2019 ( Lightbourne, 2017 ) . The expectation is that the program’s projects will involve social workers and allied professionals working with Dual Status youths whether in jail or out in the world, to get their lives back on course.
Conclusion
It is a great misfortune when the future of a promising child is compromised because of factors that are absolutely beyond their control. No child has a choice about who the parents will be, where to be born, or how to be raised. The society, therefore, has a social obligation to ensure that the adversities caused by the parent-related vagaries that face a child have little effects. For a variety of reasons, children who end up in the child services system have a higher propensity for ending up in the criminal justice systems. The instant policy will empower social workers so that they can intervene in the lives of these children thus putting them on the path to a successful future.
References
California Legislative Information! (2018). AB-1911 Dual status minors (2015-2016). Retrieved from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1911
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2013). How the child welfare system works. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/cpswork.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction
Davis, M., Sheidow, A. J., & McCart, M. R. (2015). Reducing recidivism and symptoms in emerging adults with serious mental health conditions and justice system involvement. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research , 42 (2), 172-190
Hirschi, T. (2017). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In The Reasoning Criminal (pp. 105-118). London: Routledge
Lee, M. T., Pagano, M. E., Johnson, B. R., Post, S. G., Leibowitz, G. S., & Dudash, M. (2017). From defiance to reliance: Spiritual virtue as a pathway towards desistence, humility, and recovery among juvenile offenders. Spirituality in Clinical Practice , 4 (3), 161
LegiScan LLC. (2018). California AB1911 | 2015-2016 | regular session. Retrieved from https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1911/2015
Lightbourne, W. (2017). Family and juvenile law advisory committee: Dual-status youth data standards working group. California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership, 10, 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dual_status_youth_resource_binder.pdf
Locke, J. (2017). State approaches to implementing community-based alternatives to incarceration for youth involved in the justice system. Issue brief. National Governors Association. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED583164.pdf
Vidal, S., Prince, D., Connell, C. M., Caron, C. M., Kaufman, J. S., & Tebes, J. K. (2017). Maltreatment, family environment, and social risk factors: Determinants of the child welfare to juvenile justice transition among maltreated children and adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect , 63 , 7-18
