BILL ANALYSIS
AB 114
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 17, 2009
Consultant: Larry Yee
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 114 (Carter) - As Introduced: January 13, 2009
SUMMARY : Revises the objectives of the juvenile justice system
to include principles of restorative justice and authorizes
communities to adopt restorative justice programs, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative intent to incorporate principles of
restorative justice into juvenile justice proceedings.
Specifically:
a) Recognizes the following three restorative justice
principles:
i) Community protection through a continuum of
appropriate responses that protect citizens and
victims from the threat of delinquent minors' conduct;
ii) Accountability of the minor through
restoration of the losses by the victim and community;
and,
iii) Competency development of the minor through
treatment, education, and building the skills needed
for success in the community.
b) States that the juvenile justice system should repair
crime-related injuries to the victim, the community, and
the offender. Victims and communities should be actively
involved throughout the process to the extent consistent
with the offender's right to due process and the rights of
the minor and victim, as specified.
c) States the fundamental intention of the Juvenile Court
Law that individualized care, treatment, and guidance be
provided to each minor involved in juvenile court.
AB 114
Page 2
2)Authorizes individual counties to adopt a restorative justice
program under the conditions that counties provide that:
a) The restorative justice program address the needs of
minors, victims, and the community,
b) The restorative justice programs follow a protocol,
developed by the juvenile court in conjunction with the
prosecutor, public defender, probation department, victims'
groups, law enforcement, community organizations, service
providers, restorative justice groups, and clinicians with
expertise in adolescent development. The protocol must
address the following:
i) The formation of a restorative justice
council;
ii) The process to come before the council;
iii) The rights of minors;
iv) Confidentiality issues;
v) Timeliness for case proceedings;
vi) The scope of services and orders imposed by
the council;
vii) The role of the courts;
viii) Qualifications for council members;
ix) A compliance evaluation process; and,
x) A process for failure to comply.
c) The restorative justice program seek to repair the harm
to the victim, the minor, and the community. The program
shall be tailored to the age, mental capacity, and maturity
of the minor, the nature of the offense, and the resources
available to the minor.
d) Minors may be referred to the restorative justice
program by the court's order for informal supervision,
AB 114
Page 3
non-wardship probation, dispositional order, or order for
deferred entry of judgment.
e) If the minor is placed in foster care under the
supervision of a probation officer, the minor may only be
referred to the restorative justice program if the
participation in the program:
i) Is consistent with the minor's foster care
case plan, and reunification services between the
minor and his or her family; and,
ii) Does not result in the loss of federal
financial participation for the minor's placement.
f) No General Fund money shall be used to fund a
restorative justice program. A county must obtain funds
before establishing a program, and may apply to other
public and private entities for funding.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, except as specified, any person who is under the age
of 18 years when he or she violates any law of this state or
of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of
this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing
a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward
of the court. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section
602(a).]
2)States a minor 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 is appropriate
for their circumstances. This guidance may include punishment
that is consistent with the rehabilitative objectives of this
chapter. If a minor has been removed from the custody of his
or her parents, family preservation and family reunification
are appropriate goals for the juvenile court to consider when
AB 114
Page 4
determining the disposition of a minor under the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court as a consequence of delinquent conduct
when those goals are consistent with his or her best interests
and the best interests of the public. When the minor is no
longer a ward of the juvenile court, the guidance he or she
received should enable him or her to be a law-abiding and
productive member of his or her family and the community.
[WIC Section 202(b).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "I have
introduced this bill because I am deeply concerned about the
youth in our society. There needs to be a way to teach youth
about the consequences of their actions before they commit
crimes that land them in prison. I believe the programs
described in this bill will force California's youth to deal
with their victims and the consequences of their crimes,
teaching them responsibility and how to avoid future crimes.
We need to find more approaches to combating juvenile crime
and this bill does just that by promising care and
rehabilitation to minors for non-violent offenses."
2)Background : According to the background submitted by the
author: "This bill would revise the purpose of the juvenile
court law to include dispositions intended to accomplish
specified public safety objectives and sets forth 5 principles
governing the operation of the juvenile justice system,
including the right of the public to safe and secure homes and
communities. The bill would authorize the Chief Deputy
Secretary for Juvenile Justice and qualified restorative
justice agencies to establish, in collaboration, restorative
justice centers in designated areas in counties throughout
California.
"Both the juvenile court and the juvenile justice systems
operate under a retributive justice philosophy and under the
traditional individual treatment mission. Both approaches
have failed to satisfy basic needs of individual crime
victims, the community, and juvenile offenders.
"The Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) Model outlines an
alternative philosophy, restorative justice, and a new
AB 114
Page 5
mission, 'the balanced approach,' which requires juvenile
justice professionals to devote attention to:
a) "Enabling offenders to make amends to their victims and
community
b) "Increasing offender competencies
c) "Protecting the public through processes in which
individual victims, the community, and offenders are all
active participants"
"The BARJ Model responds to many issues raised by the victims'
movement, including concerns that victims have little input
into the resolution of their own cases, rarely feel heard, and
often receive no restitution or expression of remorse from the
offender.
"The balanced approach is based on an understanding of crime
as an act against the victim and the community. Practitioners
have used techniques consistent with this approach for years;
however, they have lacked a coherent philosophical framework
that supports restorative practice and provides direction to
guide all aspects of juvenile justice practice. The BARJ
Model provides an overarching vision and guidance for daily
decisions.
"People who work on the front lines of the system are faced
daily with the frustration of seeing growing numbers of young
people involved in criminal behavior, youth who leave the
system with little hope for real change, and countless victims
and community members who are left out of the process. That
frustration has inspired many to work toward changing
organizational culture, values, and programs to reflect a more
balanced and restorative approach to juvenile justice.
"Currently, there are several community-based restorative
justice programs that work with various local entities
statewide. These programs are inspired by the idea that by
teaching malleable youth who make mistakes that they must take
responsibility for their actions they will be productive
adults in the future. This bill will allow juvenile court
systems, which are run by counties, to create its own
restorative justice program that will provide for supervision,
care, and rehabilitation of minors. By taking this balanced
AB 114
Page 6
approach to juvenile crime, this will help reduce juvenile
recidivism, increase school-going populations and fiscally
recapture dollars lost due to juvenile crimes and their
effects on the counties across the state."
3)Veto Message of AB 360 : A substantially similar bill, AB 360
(Carter), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, was vetoed. The
Governor stated, "While I am open to prevention and treatment
programs which are proven effective, the principles stated in
this bill appear to emphasize alternatives to incarceration,
without ensuring public safety. It is also unclear whether
the restorative justice program, as proposed in this bill, is
limited to first or second-time, nonviolent offenders. I urge
the Legislature to give further attention to these important
issues that help shape the juvenile justice system. For these
reasons I am unable to sign this bill." The Governor's
objections do not appear to have been further addressed by
this bill.
4)Scope of Eligibility : The author's indicated intent is to
authorize a multi-pronged approach to combat juvenile crime,
"promising care and rehabilitation to minors for non-violent
offenses." The text of this bill includes, but does not
explicitly limit the scope of, the BARJ to non-violent
offenders. This bill does not further clarify the Governor's
objection in his veto of AB 360 that the restorative justice
program should be specific as to whether program is limited to
first- or second-time, non-violent offenders.
This bill authorizes eligibility of minors to the restorative
justice program in proposed WIC Section 237(b), under " . . .
a restorative justice protocol developed by the juvenile court
in conjunction with the prosecutor, public defender, probation
department, representatives from victim's groups, law
enforcement, community organizations and service providers,
restorative justice groups, and clinicians with expertise in
adolescent development . . . ". Proposed WIC Section 237(d)
provides that "minors may be referred to the restorative
justice program as part of the court's order for informal
supervision pursuant to Section 654.2, the court's order for
non-wardship probation under subdivision (a) of Section 725,
the court's dispositional order under Section 727, or the
court's order for deferred entry of judgment under Section
790."
AB 114
Page 7
Although there is no explicit mention of a limitation to first-
or second-time, non-violent offenders, the referenced WIC
Section 654.2 effectively limits informal supervision
eligibility under a variety of crimes, including violent
crimes. WIC Section 727 provides for the court to "make any
and all reasonable orders . . . " for the minor, which
although it probably realistically includes public safety
concerns, does not explicitly do so. WIC Section 790 excludes
deferred entry of judgment under a variety of enumerated
crimes, which include violent crimes. Although these sections
may limit the eligibility to BARJ to non-violent crimes, WIC
Sections 654.2, 727, and 790 were all included in AB 360 as
well; AB 360 was still vetoed for being "unclear".
The Governor's veto of AB 360 also objected that " . . . the
principles stated in this bill appear to emphasize
alternatives to incarceration, without ensuring public
safety." This bill is substantially similar to AB 360, and
nothing has been added to further "ensure public safety." An
explicit limitation to first- or second-time, non-violent
offenders may address the Governor's objection.
5)Arguments in Support :
a) According to the Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
(TiPS), "On behalf of TiPS, I write in support of AB 114,
by Assemblywoman Carter, which as you know seeks to create
an alternative for juvenile offenders who become involved
within the penal system. It is a far better investment in
the State's future to attempt to solve juvenile criminal
problems by the use of restorative justice than to pay the
incarceration costs of an adult offender for a significant
number of years."
b) According to the Youth Law Center , "The Bill will
provide juvenile courts with additional ways to address
juvenile delinquency using the principles of restorative
justice. It provides flexibility for county juvenile
systems to develop restorative justice councils, and
provides opportunities for community involvement in
delinquency intervention."
" . . . the program is not an entitlement. The Bill provides
only that programs of restorative justice may be developed
by "the juvenile court in conjunction with the prosecutor,
AB 114
Page 8
public defender, probation department, representatives from
victim's groups, law enforcement, community organizations
and service providers, restorative justice groups, and
clinicians with expertise in adolescent development."
Counties can decide to do this or not."
c) According to the Fountain of Life , "With the assistance
of local stakeholder, Fountain of Life, Inc., is operating
a RJ Pilot program at Pacific High School, located in San
Bernardino County. Administratively referred students
receive a district-approved instruction in RJ. The
two-semester, male/female RJ course addresses
accountability, public safety, and competency development.
As students earn elective credit, receive academic
enrichment, and develop social-emotional skills, change is
realized by establishing core value systems that divert
students away from incarcerated mindsets. Community
involvement and upward mobility is further cultivated
through monthly civic engagement and community service
opportunities. Fountain of Life, Inc., has received
reports from school staff showing a 40% academic
improvement in earned grades for the male class. Our
female class has been surveyed to reveal that 30% have
improved in their social-emotional ability and personal
value to the academic community and society as a whole.
"The prevention and intervention efforts used to increase
community safety and repair the various social demographic
harms students suffer include family group conferencing,
mediation, pro-social instruction, RJ training for
teachers, motivational interviewing, and restorative
community service. Community stakeholders needed to
establish this multi-systemic approach to wrongdoing
include city/county/state governments. Schools, detention
centers, policing, juvenile courts, district and
prosecuting attorneys, civic leaders, servicemen and women,
and community members.
"This bill aims to reduce juvenile recidivism, increase
school-going populations, and fiscally recapture dollars
lost due to vandalism, crime and negligence at the county
level across the state."
6)Prior Legislation :
AB 114
Page 9
a) AB 360 (Carter), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session,
would have authorized a county to adopt a restorative
justice program to address the needs of minors, victims,
and the community. AB 360 was substantially similar to
this bill and was vetoed.
b) AB 788 (Maldonado), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session,
would have revised the purposes of the juvenile court law
to include dispositions intended to accomplish public
safety objectives under a BARJ. AB 788 was vetoed for not
"specifying that such programs be proven, effective means
of ensuring public safety."
c) SB 668 (Vasconcellos), of the 1997-98 Legislative
Session, would have revised the purposes of the juvenile
court law to include dispositions intended to accomplish
public safety objectives under a BARJ. SB 668 was vetoed
because "SB 668 would do nothing to address this problem,
it would merely be grafting a new label onto the current
system, "and "should only be considered in the context of a
broader substantive and structural reform of the juvenile
justice system . . . ".
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
California State Conference, National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People
California Catholic Conference
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Fountain of Life
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
Youth Law Center
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Larry Yee / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744