BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 446 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 446 (Carter) - As Amended: March 25, 2011 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote: 5-2 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill authorizes counties to adopt a restorative justice program for juvenile offenders to address the needs of minors, victims, and the community. Specifically, this bill: 1)States the restorative justice program shall be implemented through a restorative justice protocol developed by the juvenile court in conjunction with the prosecutor, defense bar, probation, victims' groups, law enforcement, community organizations and others. 2)Requires the program seek to repair the harm to the victim, the offender, and the community. 3)Requires program requirements be tailored to the age, mental capacity, and developmental maturity of the minor, the nature of the offense, and the resources available to accomplish the goals of the program. FISCAL EFFECT No direct state or local costs. To the extent a county opts to adopt a program, and to the extent the proposed restorative justice objectives, which are generally consistent with current juvenile justice system goals, result in additional or improved programming, local juvenile justice system costs (not state-reimbursable) could increase. The bill states no GF may be used to fund a restorative justice program established by this bill. AB 446 Page 2 COMMENTS 1)Rationale . The balanced and restorative justice model, on which this bill is based, assumes an understanding of crime as an act against the victim and the community. The author contends that while criminal justice practitioners have long used techniques consistent with restorative justice, they lack a coherent philosophical framework that supports restorative practice and provides direction to guide all aspects of juvenile justice practice. 2)Prior Legislation : a) AB 114 (Carter), of the 2008-09 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill and was vetoed. Gov. Schwarzenegger stated: California's juvenile justice system is already rehabilitation-based, focused on attempts to reform juveniles rather than punish. In addition, juvenile courts may already create restorative justice programs. Consequently, this bill is unnecessary. b) AB 360 (Carter), of the 2007-08 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill and was also vetoed. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081