BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair A
1999-2000 Regular Session B
2
3
5
AB 235 (Kuehl)
As Amended May 28, 1999
Hearing date: July 13, 1999
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:br
JUVENILE JUSTICE :
YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION AUTHORITY
HISTORY
Source: Commonweal: The Juvenile Justice Program;
Attorney General's Office
Prior Legislation: SB 483 (Schiff) - 1997-98 session;
vetoed
SB 822 (Lockyer) - 1997-98 session; vetoed
Support: City of Los Angeles; Los Angeles Police
Department; Torres and Torres (if amended);
League of Women Voters of California; Little
Hoover Commission; Association for Los Angeles
Deputy Sheriffs; Los Angeles Probation Union,
AFSCME, Local 685; Chief Probation Officers of
California; California Church IMPACT; Latino
Children's Action Council; Friends Committee on
Legislation of California; Los Angeles City
Commission for Children, Youth and Their
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 2
Families; California Police Activities League;
California Conference of Catholic Bishops;
California Teachers Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 57 - Noes 22
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A "CALIFORNIA YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION AUTHORITY" BE CREATED WITHIN
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to create a "California Youth
Violence Prevention Authority" within the Office of the
Attorney General, as specified.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to carry
out specified duties, including duties relating to the
controlling of crime and the administration of justice.
Existing law further authorizes the Department of the Youth
Authority to incarcerate and supervise certain youthful
offenders. Existing law additionally authorizes a number
of juvenile justice programs which are administered by
several difference state agencies.
This bill would create the "California Youth Violence
Prevention Authority" within the office of the Attorney
General, with the following features and characteristics:
Duties and Responsibilities
The duties and responsibility of the Authority would
include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 3
(1) Providing statewide leadership and coordinating state
and local efforts to prevent violence among youth.
(2) Assisting local communities, cities, and counties in
their efforts to implement effective programs and
strategies for the prevention of youth violence.
(3) Seeking, receiving, and administering grants and funds
from public and private sources for violence prevention
efforts and programs.
(4) Providing public education on effective programs,
models, and strategies for the control of violence and
serving as a clearinghouse for information on youth
violence prevention issues, programs, resources, and
research.
(5) Providing training and technical assistance to help
build the capacity of organizations, communities, and local
government to develop, implement, and evaluate violence
prevention programs.
(6) Promoting and advocating at all levels of government
effective community programs and responses, supported by
adequate resources, for the prevention of violence among
children, youth, and families in California.
Statewide Plan
The Authority would be required to produce a statewide plan
for youth violence prevention programs and resources, as
specified. The plan would be required to be developed with
the cooperation and approval of the advisory board
described below, and would be required to include
recommendations for the coordination or consolidation of
violence prevention funds and programs presently
administered by different state agencies. The plan also
would have to include recommendations for state-funded
youth violence prevention programs, and additionally would
be required to address "other factors related to the
problem of youth violence in California, including, but not
limited to, the following:
(1) Recent state and national research on the
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 4
effectiveness and cost effectiveness of violence prevention
programs and strategies being implemented in California and
in other states.
(2) The relationship of projected growth in
California's youth population to the need for additional
youth violence prevention resources and programs.
(3) The need for a stable and continuing source of
funds to maintain a state and local network of effective
youth violence prevention programs and strategies.
(4) Firearm control policies and their relationship
to youth violence.
(5) The problem of violence committed by children in
school settings and proposed solutions."
The Authority would be required to submit this plan to the
Legislature by January 1, 2001.
Advisory Board
The Authority would be required to have an advisory board,
comprised as follows:
the Attorney General;
the Superintendent of Public Instruction;
the Director of the Department of the Youth Authority;
the Director of the Office of Criminal Justice Planning;
the Director of the Department of Health Services; and
eight public members, four of which appointed by the
Governor, including a local law enforcement officer, a
chief probation officer, an advocate or individual
representing the victims of violent crime, and a
representative of a school or school district or county
office of education that has implemented a school-based
violence prevention program; two of whom appointed by the
Speaker of the Assembly, one who would be required to be
a representative of a community-based agency specializing
in youth violence prevention services, and the other a
youth member who shall be a person under the age of 25
years who has relevant experience in programs or
activities related to the prevention of violence; and two
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 5
of whom appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, one of
whom would be required to be a criminologist or justice
system expert having specialized knowledge in the field
of violence prevention, and the other a medical or mental
health professional who has experience in serving
juvenile offenders.
The advisory board would be required to meet not less than
once per quarter, and would have the following duties:
(1) Provide guidance and make recommendations
regarding the operations, priorities, and policies of the
office.
(2) Provide input and approve recommendations for the
statewide youth violence prevention and coordination plan
described in Section 2053.
(3) Provide statewide leadership by drawing the
attention of citizens and policymakers to the need for
improved coordination of violence prevention programs and to
the need for adequate resources supporting effective and
well-deployed programs for the prevention of youth violence
in California.
Funding
This bill provides that "funding to implement the purposes,
objectives, and operations of the California Youth Violence
Prevention Authority shall be provided from an amount
appropriated to the office of the Attorney General in the
Budget Act of 2000."
Legislative Findings and Declarations
This bill contains numerous legislative findings and
declarations relating to violence, violence among and
against young Californians, and juvenile justice policy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 6
The author states:
In 1994, the Little Hoover commission
reported that early intervention is a prime
and necessary ingredient to keep at risk
children from beginning a life of criminal
activity. The state's response to this
concern has been both fragmented and
inefficient. As a 1996 Commonweal study
noted, the State of California funds at least
twenty-six different youth violence
prevention programs, and these programs are
administered by nine different state
agencies. AB 235 consolidates these efforts
under one comprehensive state agency. . . .
By coordinating state programs, the Authority
will more efficiently address the needs of
local service providers. The Authority will
build the capacity of organizations,
communities, and local government to develop,
implement, and evaluate prevention programs.
AB 235 centralizes authority over juvenile
crime prevention. I believe our children and
all of California will benefit from the
consolidation of leadership at the state
level by virtue of the improved collaboration
and cooperation between communities and the
state.
2. Mission and Structure of the Authority
As currently drafted, this bill would create the Authority
within the Office of the Attorney General, with specified
duties and responsibilities. As noted above, last session
two bills addressed the general topic of a unified,
statewide juvenile justice-related entity.
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 7
As introduced, SB 822 (Lockyer) would have created the
Authority as a stand-alone entity within state government;
SB 822 later evolved into creating an entity within the
Attorney General's Office, which is reflected in the bill
now before this Committee. (See the June 29, 1998 and
subsequent versions of the bill.) Another measure, SB 483
(Schiff), was introduced to create a Department of Juvenile
Justice in state government; this bill later evolved into a
measure requiring the development of an action plan to
determine which programs should be consolidated under a
Department of Juvenile Justice. Both measures were vetoed
by then-Governor Pete Wilson.
Some supporters have suggested the current structure of AB
235 is "too ambiguous." "Policy Consultants" Torres and
Torres have submitted several suggested revisions to the
author and to the Committee, including the transfer of 13
specified existing prevention/ intervention programs and
personnel to the Authority; developing specified,
time-certain plans for additional transfers of existing
programs to the Authority; defining the at-risk youth and
young adults to be targeted; as well as a number of other
recommendations.
Committee counsel is advised that the author and sponsors
have had preliminary contact with the Administration
concerning the framework and configuration of the
Authority, and anticipate working with the Administration
and others on further refining the bill as it progresses.
3. 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
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 8
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.
4. Overview of California's Juvenile Justice "System"
In its Analysis of the 1997-98 Budget Bill, the Legislative
Analyst's Office summarizes California's system of juvenile
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
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 9
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 percent of the
state's juvenile offenders; the remaining 3
percent are committed to the Department of
the Youth Authority and become a state
responsibility. In contrast, almost 20
percent 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
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 10
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.
5. Public Support for Prevention
In March of this year, the California Wellness Foundation
commissioned a statewide telephone survey of 1,200
registered voters in California. The survey found "voters
in California firmly believe that prevention works in
reducing youth violence." (The total margin of error for
the survey is +/- 2.8 percent.) Among the findings were
the following:
Four out of five voters (81%) indicate they would rather
invest in ways to prevent kids from getting into trouble
than build more prisons and impose stricter sentences
(14%);
Voters' preference for prevention has increased gradually
over the past few years, as this year's findings compare
to 77 percent who favored prevention in 1996 and 78
percent who did so in 1998;
Support for prevention transcends ideological, party,
gender and ethnic lines as strong majorities of all
subgroups within the electorate choose prevention at
similar, if not higher, levels as they have in the past;
Sixty percent of voters responded that there is an
inadequate availability of youth violence prevention
programs;
Sixty-three percent of voters think there is no age
whatsoever at which it is too late to help a young person
who has gotten involved in violence and crime; and
Fifty-seven percent of voters feel that not enough
resources are being allocated to youth violence
prevention;
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 11
6. Current Juvenile Crime Data
The most recent juvenile arrest data from the Department of
Justice indicate the rate of juvenile felony arrests has
decreased significantly since 1992: comparing 1992 to
1997, there was a 23.3 percent decrease in the rate of
juvenile felony arrests - compared to a 7 percent decrease
in adult felony arrests. Juvenile felony arrests were 5.8
percent between 1996 and 1997; in contrast, adult felony
arrests increased 3.2 percent.
(More)
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 12
Rate of Juvenile and Adult Felony Arrests:
1980, 1991-1997
(Source: California Department of Justice)
-----------------------------------------------------
| year |juvenile |adult felony |juvenile|adult |
| |felony |arrests: | felony |felony |
| |arrests: |rate per |arrest |arrest |
| |rate per |100,000 |rate: |rate: |
| |100,000 |population |percent |percent |
| |population|at risk |change |change |
| | at risk |(18-69 | | |
| |(10-17 |year-olds) | | |
| |year-olds)| | | |
| | | | | |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1997 |2,163.1 |2,119.0 |-5.8 | 3.2 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1996 |2,296.9 |2,054.2 |-5.5 |-8.5 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1995 |2,430.7 |2,245.4 |-7.3 |-2.7 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1994 |2,621.2 |2,308.6 |-2.8 | 2.3 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1993 |2,696.2 |2,257.4 |-4.4 |-1.0 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1992 |2,820.5 |2,279.3 |-2.8 | 3.6 |
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1991 |2,901.5 |2,199.2 |1991-199|1991-199|
| | | |6: |6: |
| | | | | - 6.6 |
| | | | |% |
| | | |- 20.8 | |
| | | |% | |
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 13
|----------+----------+-------------+--------+--------|
|1980 |3,197.7 |1,741.6 |1980-199|1980-199|
| | | |6: |6: |
| | | | - 28.2 | 17.9 |
| | | |% |% |
-----------------------------------------------------
The most recently available data from the Department of
Justice regarding violent felony arrests rates show a
continuing decrease in the rate of juvenile violent felony
arrests, compared to a slight increase in adult violent
felony arrests:
Rate of Juvenile and Adult Violent Felony Arrests:
1990-1997
(Source: California Department of Justice)
-----------------------------------------------------------
|year |juvenile |adult |juvenile |adult |
| |violent |violent |violent |violent |
| |felony |felony |felony |felony |
| |arrest |arrest |arrest |arrest |
| |rate per |rate per |rate: |rate: |
| |100,000 |100,000 |percent |percent |
| |population |population |change |change |
| |at risk |at risk | | |
| |(10-17 |(18-69 | | |
| |year-olds) |year-olds) | | |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1997 |552.7 |610.3 |-6.7 | 2.8 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1996 |592.7 |593.4 |-4.7 |-5.2 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1995 |621.9 |625.7 |-3.4 |- .8 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1994 |643.9 |620.6 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
AB 235 (Kuehl)
Page 14
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1993 |633.0 |613.4 |-2.6 |-2.0 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1992 |650.2 |625.8 |- .8 | 1.8 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1991 |655.4 |614.7 | .0 |-4.9 |
|-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------|
|1990 |655.5 |646.5 |1990-1995: |1990-1995: |
| | | |-5.1 % |-3.2 |
| | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------
The number of juvenile homicide arrests in California has
decreased significantly since the early 1990's, and
continues to decrease:
Juvenile Arrests for Homicide in California (1986 - 1997)
(Source: California Department of Justice)
***************