BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1672 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Mathis |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 14, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|ML |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Veterans Treatment Courts: Judicial Council
Assessment and Survey
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 2098 (Levine) - Ch. 163, Stats. 2014
AB 201 (Butler), 2011-2012 Legislative Session,
Vetoed by Governor
AB 1925 (Salas), 2009-2010 Legislative Session,
Vetoed by Governor
Support: American G.I Forum of California; American
Legion-Department of California; AMVETS-Department of
California; California Association of County Veterans
Service Officers; California Public Defenders
Association; California State Commanders Veterans
Council; Military Officers Association of
America-California Council of Chapters; Crime Victims
United of California; Disabled Veteran Business
Alliance; Judicial Council of California; National
Association of Social Workers - California Chapter;
VFW-Department of California; Rural County
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
2 of ?
Representatives of California; The Vietnam Veterans of
America-California State Council
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require 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.
Existing law vests in the superior courts the judicial power of
California. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 1.)
Existing law stablishes the Judicial Council and authorizes them
to make rules and recommendations regarding the operation of the
courts. (Cal. Const. art. VI, § 6(d).)
Existing law 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.)
Existing law 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. (Penal Code, §
1170.9.)
This bill 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.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to study the
availability of technology to deliver veterans' courts services
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
3 of ?
to counties without such courts. The study will begin January
1, 2017 and end January 1, 2018.
This bill 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.
This bill requires the Judicial Council to report to the
Legislature the results of their studies on the impact of
veterans' courts and the feasibility of technology to deliver
veterans' courts services that have no such courts by June 1,
2019.
This bill states that 50% of the cost of this study shall be
paid by private funds and 50% shall be paid by public funds.
This bill sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2020.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
4 of ?
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
5 of ?
A veterans' court, also known as a veterans' treatment court,
is a problem-solving court intended to serve veterans who are
involved with the justice system and whose court cases are
affected by issues such as addiction, mental illness, and/or
co-occurring disorders. These courts promote sobriety,
recovery, and stability through a coordinated response
involving cooperation and collaboration with prosecutors,
defense lawyers, probation departments, county veterans
service offices, the California Department of Veterans Affairs
(CDVA), health-care networks, employment and housing agencies
and groups, volunteer mentors who are usually also veterans,
and family support organizations.
Several counties throughout the state do not currently have a
veterans' court within their limits. As such, these veterans
often find themselves neglected and underrepresented once they
become involved in the judicial system. This problem is
exacerbated because neighboring counties are not currently
authorized to provide the services needed by these veterans.
Without proper representation and information, these veterans
are left to manage and navigate the challenges of the justice
system without vital assistance.
This bill will commission a one-year study on the impact that
a lack of access to a veterans' court has upon veterans. In
addition, the study will assess the utility of a community
court serving in place of a veterans' court. Finally, the
study will evaluate the feasibility of using technology to
allow counties without veterans' courts to utilize counties
with them.
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
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
6 of ?
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 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.
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
7 of ?
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 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
Crime Victims United of California states, in part:
Crime Victims United has long standing tradition of
rehabilitative efforts that are sound and will strengthen public
AB 1672 (Mathis ) Page
8 of ?
safety. This bill specifically targets a study on a group of
individuals that deserve specialized rehabilitative measures.
The men and women who bravely served our nation face specific
challenges when they return to civilian life and these
challenges need to be addressed with preventative and
rehabilitative measures in our complex court system. While
existing law requires veterans courts in California it is
crucial to see that the challenges of these men and women are
being met and served. This study will provide valuable insight
into learning the effectiveness of the existing programs as well
as provide information on how we can better serve our veterans.
-- END -