BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1672
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1672 (Mathis) - As Amended April 27, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | Veterans Affairs | |9 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Judicial Council, if funding (50%
private/50% public) is provided to:
1)Assess veterans treatment courts statewide, including the
number of participant veterans, available services, and
specific program outcomes.
AB 1672
Page 2
2)Survey counties that do not operate veterans treatment courts
to identify barriers to program implementation and assess the
need for these courts. The survey must identify alternative
resources that may be available to veterans, such community
courts or other collaborative justice courts.
3)Report to the Legislature, by June 1, 2019, the results of the
assessment and survey. The report must include
recommendations regarding the expansion of veteran treatment
courts.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time cost of $200,000 to Judicial Council, to be covered as
follows:
a)General Fund appropriation of $100,000 included in this bill.
b)Veterans Court Assessment Fund appropriation of $100,000.
This fund is created in this bill and is to serve as a
depository for private donations.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Judges are required 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 their service and use this
status as a factor in favor of granting probation and/or
ordering participation in approved treatment programs. For
this and other reasons, the Judicial Council has encouraged
the development of veterans' courts. Currently, at least 12
counties have established such courts.
AB 1672
Page 3
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.
Many veterans are entitled to treatment through the Veterans'
Administration and veterans treatment courts help connect them
with these benefits.
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.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 1672 will commission a
study on the costs associated with permitting counties with
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."
3)Comments. AB 1672 specifies that the work of the Judicial
Council is contingent upon an appropriation and private funds.
However, unless private funding has been secured and an
appropriation is guaranteed, it is not clear why the Judicial
Council is required to produce a report by June 1, 2019. This
deadline implies that the work will get started long before
AB 1672
Page 4
this date. Furthermore, if this study is that critical, it
should not be contingent on matching private funds.
4)Support: The California Public Defenders Association states,
"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."
5)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 2098 (Levine), Chapter 163, Statutes of 2014,
requires the court to consider a defendant's status as a
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.
AB 201 was vetoed, in his veto message Governor Brown, in
part, stated:
"Given current budgetary constraints, the decision to
adopt this kind of program-something already within
the courts' authority--is better left to the sound
discretion of the judiciary."
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, in his
veto message, Governor Schwarzenegger, in part, stated
AB 1672
Page 5
"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."
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081