Juvenile Court Administration Sb 365

• Jurisdiction: Georgia,United States
• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 1

Juvenile Court Administration SB 365

Georgia State University Law Review

[Page 25]

COURTS

Juvenile Court Administration: Amend Article 6 of Chapter 11 of Title 15, Article 3A of Chapter 5 of Title 40, Chapter 2 of Title 42, and Chapter 1 of Title 51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Delinquency Proceedings in Juvenile Court, Suspension of Driver's License for Certain Drug Offenses, the Board and Department of Corrections, and General Tort Provisions, Respectively, so as to Enact Offender Reentry Reforms as Recommended by the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform; Change Provisions Relating to Findings in a Disposition Hearing; Change Provisions Relating to Calculating Time When a Child is Delinquent and Dependent; Change Provisions Relating to Periodic Review Hearings for Children in Foster care; Provide for Permanency Planning for Children by the Department of Juvenile Justice; Provide for Court Hearings Regarding the Department of Juvenile Justice's Permanency Planning for Children; Provide for Restoration or Suspension of a Defendant's Driver's License or Issuance of a Limited Driving Permit Under Certain Circumstances; Provide for a Program and Treatment Completion Certificate That May be Issued by the Board of Corrections Under Certain Circumstances; Change Provisions Relating to Educational Programs for Adult Offenders; Provide a Rebuttable Presumption of Due Care Under Certain Circumstances When a Program and Treatment Completion Certificate Has Been Issued by the Department of Corrections; Retain Sovereign Immunity of the State; Amend Article 11 of Chapter 11 of Title 15, Chapter 15 of Title 19, and Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to the "Georgia Child Advocate for the Protection of Children Act," Child Abuse, and General Provisions for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Respectively, so as to Move the Responsibility of Coordinating and Supervising the Work of the Georgia Review Panel from the Child Advocate for the Protection of Children to the Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation or His or Her Designee; Provide for a Short Title; Provide for the Director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to Assist Local Child Fatality Review Committees; to Clarify

[Page 26]

Definitions; Provide for Legislative Findings; Amend Code Section 49-5-41 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Relating to Persons and Agencies Permitted Access to Child Abuse and Dependency Records, so as to Clarify Defined Terms and Change Provisions Relating to Disclosure; to Provide for Related Matters; to Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes.

CODE SECTIONS:	O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-600, -620, -621 (amended); 15-11-623 (new); 15-11-743 (amended); 19-15-1, -2, -3, -4 (amended); 35-3-5 (amended); 40-5-76 (amended); 42-2-5.1 (amended); 49-5-41 (amended); 51-1-54 (new).
BILL NUMBER:	SB 365
ACT NUMBER:	476
GEORGIA LAWS:	2014 Ga. Laws 34
SUMMARY:	The Act is the third installment of the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform. This installment focuses on offender reintegration and state compliance with federal standards. The Act provides for more court involvement in delinquent and dependent juvenile matters, periodic review hearings for children in residential placement, and permanency plans for juveniles. The Act also provides for driver's license reinstatement, educational programs for certain adult offenders, and programs supporting re-entry to society for adult offenders. Finally, the Act changes the reporting structure for Review Panel and Child Abuse Protocol Committees.
EFFECTIVE DATE:	July 1, 2014

[Page 27]

History

In 2011, the General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 265 establishing the Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians (the Council).¹ The Council addressed the growth in spending and incarceration rates, and attempted to reduce the thirty percent recidivism rate in Georgia.² The Council produced reports in 2011, 2012, and 2013 containing recommendations for changes to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. These reports resulted in several proposed bills in corresponding years.³ While the reforms focused on the criminal justice system as a whole, the council's reports, and subsequent bills, concentrated on different aspects of the criminal justice system including adult corrections, juvenile justice, offender re-entry, and the availability of federal funds for the juvenile justice system.⁴

Criminal Justice Reform

HB 1176 was the first resulting legislation and the General Assembly unanimously passed it in 2012.⁵ This bill sought to provide for more "community-based supervision" and the use of accountability courts to help control the prison population.⁶ While it may be too early to address the success of this law, the 2014 Council Report noted that the prison population has shifted to include more dangerous offenders than in the past.⁷ This indicates the system is

[Page 28]

focusing on higher risk, violent offenders while pursuing less drastic and expensive measures for lower level offenders.⁸

Juvenile Justice Reform

Governor Nathan Deal broadened the scope in the second phase of reform to address concerns in the Juvenile Justice system.⁹ In 2013, the General Assembly unanimously passed HB 242, which reformed the juvenile justice system.¹⁰ HB 242 strengthened evidence-based community programs while scaling back the use of incarceration for low level offenders.¹¹ The Council anticipates the reforms will save $85 million through 2018 and hopes to avoid opening two new residential facilities, which it believes will result in further savings.¹² There is currently no indication as to the law's impact on recidivism or spending.

Offender Re-entry

In 2013, after the passage of reform bills for adult corrections and juvenile justice, the Council turned its focus to promoting re-entry of offenders into society after periods of incarceration.¹³ By promoting re-entry, the Council aims to "reduc[e] the threat of harm to persons . . . by citizens returning to their communities from prison" and to "[i]ncrease success rates of returning citizens who transition from prison."¹⁴ It intends to reach these goals by preparing offenders before their releases and removing employment and housing barriers upon release.¹⁵ By encouraging reintegration, offenders are less likely to reoffend and return to prison in the future, thereby lowering the recidivism rate.¹⁶

[Page 29]

Availability of Federal Funds for the Juvenile Justice System

The Council also addressed the Department of Juvenile Justice's (DJJ) eligibility for federal funds for youth committed to its care. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act provides funds to states for children in out-of-home placement.¹⁷ Previously, DJJ only sought federal funds for committed youth also involved with DJJ and the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), resulting in a lack of federal funds for youth in out-of-home placements through DJJ with no DFCS involvement.¹⁸

Title IV-E funds are available to any state child welfare system that meets certain federal regulatory requirements.¹⁹ Some of these requirements include: (1) "[p]lacement and care responsibility must be given to the [state agency listed] in the first court order removing the child from the home;" (2) "[t]he first court order that authorizes removal from the home must provide detailed and child-specific best interest/contrary to the welfare language;" and (3) "[t]he court must certify that reasonable efforts were made to avoid the youth's removal from the home within [sixty] days."²⁰ Failure to meet these conditions cost DJJ a possible $4.2 million in 2012 and 2013.²¹

Code section 15-11-600 previously instructed judges to find that a delinquent juvenile is in need of treatment, rehabilitation, or supervision prior to removing the child from the home.²² The previous law did not require judges to include language addressing the youth's best interest or welfare.²³ Additionally, it did not contain a requirement that courts take "reasonable efforts . . . to avoid youth's removal from the home."²⁴ While this language is used for youth placed in DFCS care, the absence of this language in delinquency cases prevented DJJ from seeking federal funding for

[Page 30]

youth committed without a separate deprivation order including the pertinent language.²⁵

Child Fatality Reviews and Child Abuse Protocol Committees

While not addressed directly by the Council, the bills include a provision affecting the administration of Child Abuse Protocol Committee (Protocol Committee) and the Review Panel (Review Panel). In addition to services provided by DFCS case workers and DJJ personnel, counties conduct child fatality reviews and child abuse reviews to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to protect children in the community.²⁶ The Review Panel is positioned administratively under the direction of the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB), which coordinated with the Office of the Child Advocate.²⁷ The Review Panel is comprised of district attorneys, juvenile court judges, citizens, and other professionals.²⁸ The Panel meets quarterly to review the incidents of child fatalities and report "to the Governor on the incidence of child deaths with recommendations for prevention," giving the Governor and agencies more insight and information regarding the practices and circumstances surrounding child deaths in the community.²⁹

Similarly, the Protocol Committee is comprised of representatives from sheriffs' offices, DFCS, district attorneys' offices, various courts, and other organizations.³⁰ The previous law positioned the Protocol Committee under the direction of the office of the Child Advocate for the Protection of Children.³¹ The Protocol Committee ensures "coordination and cooperation between all agencies involved in a child abuse case so as to increase the efficiency of all...