58 Children’s Legal Rights Journal [Vol. 39: 1 2019]
interventions designed to meet the specific needs of female offenders. 126 The Plan called for
replacement of existing special management programs (where lockdown was endemic) with time-limited behavior treatment programs. 127 Youth were to receive at least eight hours of rehabilitative
services in each twenty-four-hour period, including four hours of education, two hours of
recreation, and two hours of rehabilitative/treatment interventions.128 Temporary detention, or
disciplinary lockdown, was to be phased out and replaced with “time outs” for up to six hours on
assigned living units.129
A second Farrell Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan developed by the national experts was
released in March 2006.130 Much of that Plan focused on creating new treatment modalities,
improving classification, using smaller living units, engaging families, and increasing staffing
levels, especially for mental health.131 The Farrell Mental Health Remedial Plan was filed in
August 2006.132 Like the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan, it focused primarily on big picture
reforms such as developing a philosophy of treatment, building a continuum of care, screening and
assessment, staffing and staff qualifications, evidence-based treatment, family engagement, and
quality assurance.133 It sought to broadly alter the system in ways that would decrease the need for
locked room time. It also called for youth with high level inpatient care needs to be returned to the
committing court, referred to the Department of Mental Health, or handled in a licensed inpatient
care unit,134 thus reducing the population that previously wound up in lockdown. In addition, the
Mental Health Remedial Plan called for daily schedules to be developed
to maximize out of room time and to ensure structured activity based on evidence-
based principles for 40 to 70% of waking hours. The program service day schedule
will ensure that youth will be actively engaged in developmentally appropriate and
rehabilitative activities with the expectation that they will spend minimal time in
their rooms during normal waking hours.135
H. The Prelude to Legislation
Compliance with the Farrell remedial plans was slow to take hold. Thus, one year after the
2006 remedial plans, the Inspector General released yet another report, this time on the Heman G.
126 Id. at 2.
127 Id. at 68.
129 Id. at 70.
130 CHRISTOPHER MURRAY ET AL., CAL. DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, DIV. OF JUV. JUST., SAFETY AND
WELFARE PLAN: IMPLEMENTING REFORM IN CALIFORNIA (Mar. 31, 2006),
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/docs/SafetyWelfarePlan.pdf. Although most of the Plan focused on broad
brush reforms, there were a few specific references to use of locked room time. For example, the Plan called for
increased monitoring of the use of restricted housing, temporary detention and use of lockdown, as well as
implementation of Performance Based Standards designed to reduce the length of locked room confinement. Id. at 83,
131 SAFETY &WELFARE REMEDIAL PLAN, supra note 125, at 9–10, 29, 33–57, 61–65, 70.
132 CAL. DEP’ T OF CORREC TIONS & REHABILITATION, DIV. OF JUV. JUS T., MENTAL HEALTH REMEDIAL PLAN (Aug. 26,
133 Id. at 13–19, 21–39, 46–54, 56–60, 69–71.