BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
7
7
AB 177 (Mendoza)
As Amended March 16, 2011
Hearing date: June 7, 2011
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:dl
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
ANTI-GANG VIOLENCE CLASSES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1291(Mendoza) - Ch. 457, Stats. 2007
Support: AFSCME, AFL-CIO; California State Sheriffs'
Association; California Council for Adult Education; League of
California Cities
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Coalition
for Women Prisoners; Legal Services for Prisoners with
Children
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 67 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO ORDER PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF A
CHILD FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED A STATUS OR CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageB
ATTEND ANTI-GANG VIOLENCE PARENTING CLASSES WHERE THE COURT FINDS
THAT FACTORS EXIST THAT MAY INDICATE GANG INVOLVEMENT BY THE CHILD,
OR MAY LEAD TO FUTURE GANG INVOLVEMENT, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the existing statute
authorizing courts to order a parent or guardian of a child who
is a first-time status or criminal offender and is committed to
their custody to attend anti-gang violence parenting classes
where the court finds that factors exist that may indicate gang
involvement on the part of the minor, or may lead to future gang
involvement.
Current law provides that minors under the age of 18 years may
be adjudged to be a ward of the court where they "persistently
or habitually refuse() to obey the reasonable and proper orders
or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or custodian,"
are "beyond the control of that person," "violated any ordinance
of any city or county of this state establishing a curfew based
solely on age . . . ," or are habitually truant, as specified.
(Welfare and Institutions Code ("WIC") § 601.)
Current law further provides that minors under the age of 18
years may be adjudged to be a ward of the court for violating
"any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance
of any city or county of this state defining crime," as
specified. (WIC § 602.)
Current law generally provides that when a minor is adjudged a
ward of the court on the ground
that he or she is delinquent, the court may make any and all
reasonable orders for the care,
supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the
minor, including medical treatment, subject to further order of
the court, as specified. (WIC § 727(a).)
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageC
Current law further provides that if a minor is found to be
delinquent by reason of the commission of a gang-related
offense, and the court finds that the minor is a first-time
offender and orders that a parent or guardian retain custody of
that minor, the court may order the parent or guardian to attend
antigang violence parenting classes. The father, mother,
spouse, or other person liable for the support of the minor, the
estate of that person, and the estate of the minor shall be
liable for the cost of these classes unless the court finds that
the person or estate does
not have the financial ability to pay, as specified. (WIC §
727.7.)
This bill would expand this provision to authorize a court to
order a parent or guardian of any minor found to be delinquent
by reason of a status or criminal offense to attend anti-gang
violence parenting classes where the court finds that factors
exist that may indicate gang involvement on the part of the
minor, or may lead to future gang involvement. The provision no
longer would be limited to minors found to have committed a
gang-related offense.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageD
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(More)
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
According to the National Gang Center, "juvenile
delinquency is a precursor behavior to gang
membership. Put otherwise, virtually all youths who
join a gang Ýhave] prior delinquency involvement."
(www.nationalgangcenter.gov) The Los Angeles Police
Department cites examples of juvenile delinquency or
risk factors as truancy, rebellious behavior, violent
behavior, and so forth. According to the state's
official CalGang Database, there were 7,703 gangs and
223,828 gang members in California in 2008
(www.vpc.org/studies/CAgang.pdf). Gang activity
remains a problem that needs to be addressed in our
state.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As noted above, juvenile courts have broad discretion to make
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageF
reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct,
maintenance, and support of minors adjudged to be delinquent.
In addition, existing law authorizes juvenile courts to
direct orders to the parent or guardian of a minor who is
subject to any proceedings under the Juvenile Court Law as the
court deems necessary and proper for the best
interest or rehabilitation of the minor.
In 2007 the author carried legislation to expressly provide that
if a minor is found to be delinquent by reason of the commission
of a gang-related offense, and the court finds that the minor is
a first-time offender and orders that a parent or guardian
retain custody of that minor, the court may order the parent or
guardian to attend antigang violence parenting classes, now
reflected in Welfare and Institutions Code section 727.7.
This bill would authorize a court to order a parent or guardian
of any first-time minor offender committed to the custody of his
or her parent or guardian after being found to be delinquent by
reason of a status or criminal offense to attend antigang
violence parenting classes where the court finds that factors
exist that may indicate gang involvement on the part of the
minor, or may lead to future gang involvement.
3. Scope of the Bill
As explained above, under current law courts may order parents
or guardians to attend anti-gang violence parenting classes
where their child has been found to have committed a
gang-related crime, is a first-time offender, and is committed
to the custody of his or her parents or guardian. This bill
would remove the requirement that the child be found to have
committed a gang-related crime. Instead, this bill would apply
this authority where a child, as a first time offender committed
to his or her parents' or guardian's custody, has been found to
have committed any status or criminal offense where the court
finds that factors exist that may indicate gang involvement on
the part of the minor, or may lead to future gang involvement.
The author and/or members of the Committee may wish to consider
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageG
the scope of this bill. Status offenses include conduct which
is regulated solely because of the age of the person - in other
words, conduct that would be permissible if engaged in by a
person 18 years of age or older. Homeless youth may be status
offenders, to the extent they have run away from home. Habitual
truancy from school is a status offense. Violating a curfew
ordinance is a status offense. Members may wish to consider
whether imposing anti-gang violence classes on the parents or
guardians of these minors based on factors the court finds may
lead to future gang involvement is an appropriate and effective
response in these cases. In addition, members may wish to
discuss how courts could objectively assess factors which may
lead to future gang involvement, or if this requirement might be
too subjective to be fairly and evenly applied.
(More)
A July 2009 paper published by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency states in part:
Research has found that numerous risk factors can help
predict a young person's likelihood of joining a gang.
Much of these data come from large longitudinal
studies of youth in Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA;
Rochester, NY; and Seattle, WA. Each study includes a
subsample of gang-involved youth, from whom data
were collected at various points in time, and the
study design allows researchers to determine causal
relationships between risk factors and gang membership
(Howell & Egley, 2005). Risk factors for serious and
violent delinquency,
including gang membership, are grouped into five
developmental domains-individual characteristics,
family, school, peers, and community conditions. The
more risk factors a youth has, the more likely he or
she is to join a gang. In addition, experiencing risk
factors in multiple domains seems to increase the
possibility of gang involvement. . . .
Another key issue examined in gang research is the
connection between gang membership and serious,
violent, and chronic offending by juveniles. Gang
members are responsible for a disproportionate amount
of adolescent delinquency and crime. For example, the
Rochester youth study found that gang members
represented 31% of the study sample but had carried
out 82% of serious offenses such as aggravated assault
and robbery (Howell, 2003). Youth also tend to carry
out more serious and violent acts while in a gang than
after leaving a gang. The Denver, Seattle, and
Rochester youth studies showed that while gang
members' offense rates decreased after exiting a gang,
(More)
AB 177 (Mendoza)
PageI
they were still relatively high (Howell, 1998).<1>
To the extent it would reflect the intent of the author and any
concerns of the Committee, the language could be refined to
apply the authority to impose the classes "where the court finds
the presence of significant risk factors for gang membership."
***************
---------------------------
<1> Glesmann, Krisberg and Marchionna, Youth in Gangs: Who is
at Risk? (July 2009) http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pdf/
Youth_gangs_final.pdf. (footnotes omitted.)