BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1620
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2001
Counsel: Lucy Armendariz
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
AB 1620 (Washington) - As Introduced: February 23, 2001
As Proposed to Be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY : Creates an Office of Youth Violence Prevention within
the Health and Human Services Agency to audit existing state
prevention programs and make recommendations for improving
efficiency, accountability and effectiveness. Specifically,
this bill requires the Office of Youth Violence Prevention to
undertake its responsibilities within the following timeframes:
1)Year One: Conduct an audit of existing state prevention
programs to determine effectiveness in violence prevention and
issue recommendations to ensure effectiveness.
2)Year Two:
a) Apply for funding from private and public sources for
purposes of operating the office and for awarding moneys to
organizations through a grant program;
b) Identify and disseminate information to service
providers regarding available public and private funding
sources; and,
c) Develop the California Violence Prevention and Public
Health Plan, a statewide prevention plan for consolidating,
augmenting, allocating and coordinating prevention programs
and resources.
3)Year Three:
a) Administer a grant program for the purpose of making
resources available to community-based violence prevention
activities;
b) Provide technical assistance to local communities
regarding designing and implementing prevention programs;
AB 1620
Page B
c) Analyze state public policy to assess California's
response to crime and issue recommendations for expanding
effective prevention strategies; and,
d) Consolidate existing prevention programs which meet
specified criteria to the Office of Youth Violence
Prevention and coordinate with other existing programs.
4)Year Four:
a) Promote and advocate to all levels of government about
effective prevention strategies; and,
b) Issue an annual report to the Legislature regarding the
activities taken by the Office of Youth Violence
Prevention.
5)Establishes a grant program for the purpose of making
resources available to community-based violence prevention
activities.
6)Defines "at-risk youth, young adults and families" which are
the focus of the Office of Youth Violence Prevention
7)Requires the Office of Youth Violence Prevention and its
advisory board to develop a plan for orderly transfer of
prevention programs operated by California.
8)Requires the formation of an advisory board to meet four times
a year, describes its duties and names its members.
9)Declares legislative intent to create the Youth Violence
Prevention Fund in the State Treasury, that funding shall be
provided from the General Fund in an amount equal to a
percentage of the operating budget of the Department of the
Youth Authority, and funding will also be raised through the
issuance of a special vehicle license plate.
10)Contains numerous legislative findings and declarations
relating to violence, violence among and against young
Californians, and juvenile justice policy.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 1620
Page C
1)Requires the Department of Justice to carry out specified
duties, including duties relating to the controlling of crime
and the administration of justice.
2)Authorizes the Department of the Youth Authority to
incarcerate and supervise certain youthful offenders.
3)Authorizes a number of juvenile justice programs which are
administered by several different state agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background: Task Force Recommendation : In its September,
1996 report, the California Task Force to Review Juvenile
Crime and the Juvenile Justice Response stated:
"We recommend that California establish a state office or
authority dedicated to youth violence prevention, housed
within a consolidated state juvenile justice agency but with
its own distinct mission, operations, and budget.
"The Task Force believes that one of California's highest
priorities should be the prevention of violence among youth.
Leadership is needed to elevate the statewide priority given
to youth violence prevention and to help implement violence
prevention programs and strategies. The Task Force therefore
recommends that a separate state office or authority dedicated
to youth violence prevention be established. The office or
authority could be housed within a consolidated juvenile
justice oversight agency but be independent to assure that the
focus on violence prevention is maintained.
"The youth violence prevention office or authority would
identify model violence prevention programs and strategies;
assist communities with implementation of effective violence
prevention programs; identify funding streams and distribute
state funds that may become available for local programs; and
serve as a clearinghouse and central leadership forum on
statewide issues related to youth violence prevention."
2)Overview of California's Juvenile Justice "System" : In its
Analysis of the 1997-98 Budget Bill, the Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) summarizes California's system of juvenile
AB 1620
Page D
justice:
"California's juvenile justice system is actually a multitude of
systems, programs, and organizations that are designed to
serve both the needs of juvenile offenders and protect public
safety. Although called a system, it is not always
coordinated or interrelated, mainly because so many different
groups and organizations have overlapping and sometimes
differing responsibilities for dealing with juvenile
offenders.
"The juvenile justice system is primarily a local
responsibility. County probation departments supervise 97% of
the state's juvenile offenders; the remaining 3% are committed
to the Department of the Youth Authority and become a state
responsibility. In contrast, almost 20% of adult offenders
are sent to state prison. In addition to probation
departments, county departments of social services, child
protective services, mental health, drug and alcohol programs,
county offices of education, along with local school
districts, all provide services for juvenile offenders. Also,
many law enforcement agencies have resources that deal
specifically with juveniles and the juvenile justice system.
"The agencies that arrest, detain, and incarcerate juveniles are
allowed a variety of options for dealing with juveniles, in
contrast to the system that deals with adults. For example,
for very similar crimes, juveniles can be detained in juvenile
or adult facilities, tried in juvenile or adult courts,
subjected to juvenile or adult sentences, and be incarcerated
only with juveniles or only with adults or a mixture of the
two.
"Further adding to the complexity of the system are the
sometimes contradictory goals of protecting the welfare of the
juvenile offender and protecting the public. For example,
much discussion has centered around questions of which type of
court should have jurisdiction over certain types of juvenile
offenders, whether juvenile records should be confidential,
and when rehabilitation should give way to punishment."
3)Juvenile Crime Data : In its Analysis of the 1997-98 Budget
Bill, the LAO states:
"There is no accurate measure of how many of California's almost
AB 1620
Page E
four million 10- to 17-year-olds (the ages most likely to
commit crimes) are actually involved in criminal activities.
While there is very limited data on juvenile crime, we are
able to use juvenile arrest statistics as a measure of
activity.
"Based on arrest data, juveniles were responsible for 16% of all
arrests in 1994 (the most recent year for which data are
available), while accounting for just 10% of the state's
population.
"Furthermore, juveniles were responsible for 15% of all arrests
for violent offenses in 1994.
"While the juvenile arrest rate for violent crime has increased
63% since 1985, the rate has actually declined in the past
three years. The decline could be due to a variety of
factors. For example, the arrest rate may have declined
because fewer juveniles have committed crimes as a consequence
of prevention, suppression, and enforcement efforts. On the
other hand, the rate may have decreased because of limited law
enforcement resources have resulted in fewer arrests, not
fewer crimes."
4)State-Supported Violence Prevention Programs Are Fragmented :
State-funded violence prevention programs are dispersed among
10 or more state agencies. Both the Little Hoover Commission
(1994) and the California Task Force to Review Juvenile Crime
and the Juvenile Justice Response (1996) have recommended that
youth crime and violence prevention program oversight be
consolidated for greater effectiveness within a single state
agency. The Juvenile Crime Task Force concluded, "California
lacks a central state mechanism for the identification,
funding and coordination of . . . violence prevention
programs. Reinvigorated leadership is needed to raise the
overall priority given to violence prevention efforts
throughout the state."
In a 2000 report on crime prevention programs, the LAOP reported
that there are 13 state agencies and departments in California
administering more than 40 crime prevention programs.<1> As
summarized by LAO:
---------------------------
<1> Legislative Analyst's Office, Crime Prevention in
California: Building Successful Programs (2000).
AB 1620
Page F
"[I]n 2000-01, the state will spend about $500.8 million on
these programs, most of which are focused on young people.
About 34% of the programs take place in communities and about
34% take place in schools. The remainder are divided between
families and criminal justice agencies.
". . . Community crime prevention is based on the notion that
individuals at the local level are the most well equipped to
design and implement programs that focus on the specific needs
of the community. These programs are often targeted at
increasing the overall well being of the community as opposed
to targeting a specific crime. Examples of community crime
prevention programs include:
After-school programs that provide supervised
educational and leisure activities to at-risk youth.
Mentor programs that provide positive role models for
at-risk youth.
Community policing that encourage neighborhoods to work
with law enforcement to proactively deter crime.
"California funds 14 programs that support community-based
crime prevention at an annual cost of $108 million. Most of
these programs support supervision, mentoring, or after-school
activities for at-risk juveniles and their families.
". . . Families are often the most important social group in
an individual's life. Research has found that factors such as
high poverty, poor health, and family instability can result
in lower self-control, cognitive ability, and societal
relationships. In turn, these can increase an individual's
likelihood of engaging in criminal activity. Reducing an
individual's risk factors can lower the incidence of future
criminal activity among parents and children. Examples of
family-based crime prevention programs include:
Parenting classes that provide parents of at-risk youth
with support to reduce child abuse and delinquency.
Domestic violence shelters that provide safety and
services to battered women and their children.
Home visitation programs in which nurses visit a child's
AB 1620
Page G
home regularly, provide support services, and monitor the
child's development.
"California funds four programs in four different departments
that support family-based crime prevention at an annual cost
of $87 million. These programs focus on reducing violence in
the home and providing support for parents of at-risk youth.
". . . Schools can be a useful environment for reducing the
incidence of juvenile crime because they employ trained child
professionals who have regular access to children during their
developmental years. Schools, guided by the philosophy that
criminal behavior is learned, use a variety of educational and
non-educational approaches and programs to address crime.
Examples of school-based programs include:
Conflict resolution programs in which students are
taught alternative skills to violence which they can use to
resolve problems.
Drug education programs that teach students the dangers
of drug and alcohol abuse and life skills they can use to
respond to peer pressure.
School organization and management programs in which
students are organized into smaller groups to facilitate
management and reduce behavior problems.
"California funds 14 programs in five different departments
that support school-based crime prevention at an annual cost
of $191 million.
". . . A basic principle of crime prevention is to prevent
individuals from initially engaging in criminal activity.
Preventing existing offenders from committing new crimes in
the future can also significantly reduce the level of crime in
the community. In contrast to the proactive programs profiled
in previous sections, crime prevention programs operated by
criminal justice agencies are generally reactive in that
participants do not reach the program until they have already
committed a crime. Examples of criminal justice crime
prevention programs include:
Rehabilitation programs such as drug treatment or anger
management for populations that are incarcerated or under
AB 1620
Page H
community supervision.
Community supervision in which offenders are monitored
closely and provided with support services so that they do
not re-offend.
Residential programs in rural settings, in which
wilderness, challenge, or counseling programs are used to
teach discipline.
"California funds nine programs that support criminal justice
agency prevention programs at an annual cost of about $115
million.<2>
1)Outcome Data on Effective Programs Are Promising : Evaluations
of specific youth violence prevention programs in other venues
yield new confidence about their efficacy. There is a need in
California to collect information and outcome data on
effective violence prevention programs; but at present, no
state agency is comprehensively reviewing these evaluations.
Among other things, the Attorney General's Policy Council on
Violence Prevention (1995) recommends that a clearinghouse be
established to coordinate sharing and disseminating violence
prevention information, data and resource materials, including
descriptions of rigorously evaluated violence prevention
efforts provided by public and private funding agencies to
demonstrate what works at the local level.
2)California Lacks a Statewide Youth Violence Prevention Plan :
California continues to commit funds sporadically from year to
year to multiple and fragmented programs that have violence
prevention components. These funding commitments are not made
in accordance with any comprehensive, statewide plan or set of
violence prevention objectives. There is a need for improved
statewide planning that can provide a rational and continuing
basis for the allocation of violence prevention resources.
This bill develops a statewide plan, the "California Violence
Prevention and Public Health Plan", which will make
recommendations regarding the augmentation, allocation,
implementation, and coordination of prevention programs and
resources.
3)Public Support for Prevention : Despite declines in juvenile
---------------------------
<2> Id.
AB 1620
Page I
violent crime arrest rates, youth violence remains a major
concern of citizens and voters. In a California Wellness
Foundation sponsored statewide poll of California voters
conducted in February 1998, voters identified juvenile
violence as the number one concern at the community level,
ranking higher than education, the economy, taxes or the
environment.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lucy Armendariz / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744