BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1672 Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016 Consultant: Matt Dean ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair AB 1672 (Mathis) - As Amended March 8, 2016 SUMMARY: Requires the Judicial Council to study the impact of veterans' courts, or the lack thereof, on veterans involved in the criminal justice system, the availability of technology to increase access to veterans' courts, and the utility of community courts as a substitute. Specifically, this bill: 1)Requires the Judicial Council to study the impact of veterans' courts, or the lack thereof, on veterans involved in the criminal justice system. The study will begin January 1, 2017 and end January 1, 2018. 2)Requires the Judicial Council to study the availability of technology to deliver veterans' courts services to counties without such courts. The study will begin January 1, 2017 and end January 1, 2018. 3)Requires the Judicial Council to study the utility of community courts as a substitute for veterans' courts in those counties that do not have veterans' courts. The study will begin January 1, 2017 and end January 1, 2018. 4)Requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature the results of their studies on the impact of veterans' courts and AB 1672 Page 2 the feasibility of technology to deliver veterans' courts services that have no such courts by June 1, 2019. 5)States that 50% of the cost of this study shall be paid by private funds and 50% shall be paid by public funds. 6)Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2020. EXISTING LAW: 1)Vests in the superior courts the judicial power of California. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 1.) 2)Establishes the Judicial Council and authorizes them to make rules and recommendations regarding the operation of the courts. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 6(d).) 3)Allows courts to make rules for the administration of the courts so long as they are not otherwise prohibited by the Constitution, statute or rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (Gov. Code, § 68070; Wisniewski v. Clary (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 499.) 4)Requires judges to identify veteran defendants suffering from sexual trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, substance abuse, or mental health problems as a result of his or her service and use this status as a factor in favor of granting probation and/or ordering participation in approved treatment programs. (Pen. Code, § 1170.9.) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: 1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Every veteran deserves access to courts specifically designed to assist them through our complex justice system. These courts also provide vital information on mental health and substance abuse recovery programs. As such, counties with veterans' courts should support counties without them. AB 1672 will commission a study on the costs associated with permitting counties with AB 1672 Page 3 veterans courts to provide services to counties without the courts. This simple measure will ensure that no veteran is left without the representation they deserve." 2)Background: Under California law, every court has the authority to make rules for its own government. This is an inherent power of the courts, but this power has also been codified in the Government Code. This power is limited only by any conflict with the California Constitution, statute or rules adopted by the Judicial Council of California. Nothing in California's Constitution or statutes prohibits or requires the development of veterans' courts. However, under the Penal Code, courts are required to identify veteran defendants suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other issues for purposes of sentencing. For this and other reasons, the Judicial Council has encouraged the development of veterans' courts. The Judicial Council has authority under the California Constitution to make rules governing California courts and to make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor regarding the operation of the courts. Under this authority, the Judicial Council created the Collaborative Justice Court Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Judicial Council on criteria for identifying and evaluating collaborative justice courts and for improving the processing of cases in these courts, which include drug courts, domestic violence courts, youth courts, community courts, veterans' courts and other collaborative justice courts. Currently, at least 12 counties in California have established veterans' courts and two have established community courts. Collaborative justice courts primary purpose is to connect criminal defendants with mental health, drug treatment and other rehabilitative services to reduce recidivism. In general, community courts have similar aims -in terms of connecting defendants with rehabilitative services- with the additional aims of promoting principles of community involvement, balanced and restorative justice, and accountability. Community courts can channel required community service hours to help meet community needs. In AB 1672 Page 4 practice, community courts may differ little or not at all from other collaborative justice courts. For example, in Orange County the Community Court is the umbrella court for all of Orange County's collaborative justice courts, including their veterans' court. Veterans' courts are hybrid drug and mental health courts that use the drug court model to serve veterans struggling with addiction, serious mental illness and/or co-occurring disorders. They promote sobriety, recovery and stability through a coordinated response that involves cooperation and collaboration with the traditional partners found in drug and mental health courts in addition to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care networks, the Veterans' Benefits Administration, and, in some programs, volunteer veteran mentors and veterans' family support organizations. Veterans' Treatment Courts are responses to the growing trend of veterans appearing before the courts to face charges stemming from substance abuse or mental illness. Drug and mental health courts frequently serve veteran populations. Research has shown that traditional services do not always adequately meet the needs of veterans. Many veterans are entitled to treatment through the Veterans' Administration and veterans treatment courts help connect them with these benefits. According to government reports, there are 23,440,000 veterans in the United States and approximately 1.7 million veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that as many as one third of the adult homeless population have served in the military and that at any given time there are as many as 130,000 homeless veterans. This population mirrors the general homeless population in that 45% suffer mental illness and 75% suffer from substance abuse problems. Veterans are not more likely to be arrested than the general population. But there are significant numbers of veterans involved with the criminal justice system, many of whom struggle with mental health and/or substance abuse illnesses. A 2000 Bureau of Justice Statistics Report found that 81% of all justice involved veterans had a substance abuse problem prior to incarceration, 35% were identified as AB 1672 Page 5 suffering from alcohol dependency, 23% were homeless at some point in the prior year, and 25% were identified as mentally ill. While there have been studies on the benefits of many collaborative justice courts, as well as studies on best practices for those courts, there has not been an extensive study on the impact of veterans' courts. However, the studies conducted on other collaborative justice courts have been encouraging. For example, drug courts have seen recidivism reductions of 85% and annual savings of $90 million among participating counties. This bill would determine if similar positive impacts can be extended to veterans involved in the criminal justice system. 3)Argument in Support: The California Public Defenders Association states, "This bill would implement a pilot program whose purpose is to establish veterans' courts in "counties adjacent to the County of San Luis Obispo" that do not have veterans courts or veterans treatment courts in operation as of January 1, 2017. The bill would empower the Chief Justice to assign an active or retired judge to sit in such veterans' courts, and would establish a special fund in the state treasury that could accept public or private moneys in support of veterans courts in the region. "The goal of veterans courts is to promote sobriety, recovery, and stability for former service members charged with criminal offenses. Currently, only 12 of 58 California counties have established veterans courts, which are a critical means for connecting veterans to Veterans Administration services for which they are eligible. "This bill presents a possibility for expansion of this collaborative justice project into new areas of the state, and could provide a model for the establishment of such courts in other regions." 4)Prior Legislation: a) AB 2098 (Levine), Chapter 163, Statutes of 2014, requires the court to consider a defendant's status as a AB 1672 Page 6 veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other forms of trauma when making specified sentencing determinations. b) AB 201 (Butler) of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have authorized superior courts to develop and implement veterans' courts. This bill would have established standards and procedures for veterans' courts and would have specified that county participation in the veterans' courts program is voluntary. AB 201 was vetoed. c) AB 1925 (Salas), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session, would have authorized superior courts to develop and implement veterans' courts for eligible veterans of the United States (U.S.) military. AB 1925 was vetoed. The Governor's veto message stated "authorizing legislation is not required for the superior courts to establish specialized courts with dedicated calendars. I would urge the Judicial Council to examine the need for veterans' courts, however, and establish appropriate guidelines for the superior courts to follow." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support: California Public Defenders Association Opposition: None Analysis Prepared by: Matt Dean / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 AB 1672 Page 7