BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2280
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2000
Counsel: Fredericka McGee
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Carl Washington, Chair
AB 2280 (Florez) - As Amended: March 13, 2000
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUMMARY : Establishes an Office of Violence, Crime, and Gang
Prevention (OVCGP) within the Office of Criminal Justice
Planning (OCJP), responsible for several existing state programs
relating to at-risk youths and young adults. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Makes several legislative findings and declarations relative
to the public health treatment approach for violence and
crime; the costs related to crime and violence; California
violence, crime or gang prevention programs; and consolidation
of the prevention programs.
2)Creates the OVCGP within the OCJP to:
a)Consolidate existing state prevention programs into the
OVCGP;
b)Provide technical assistance to local communities
implementing prevention strategies;
c)Review and evaluate state operated violence, crime and gang
prevention programs and make recommendations and changes
where appropriated;
d)Administer a grant program for community-based
organizations which utilize the public health approach to
preventing, intervening and reducing crime, violence and
gangs and promote similar community based programs at all
levels of government;
e)Apply, identify and disseminate information for state,
AB 2280
Page 2
federal, public and private funding;
f)Analyze state public policy to violence, crime, and gangs
and make recommendation to ensure that the public health
response approach is utilized;
g)Report annually to the Legislature beginning the end of the
second year of the OVCGP; and,
h)Prohibit the OVCGP from promoting programs such as the
identification, monitoring or disclosure of gang members,
juvenile or adult offenders to law enforcement agencies.
3)Establishes a grant program to be administered by the OVCGP
that utilizes a public health model for the prevention and
reduction of violence, crime and gangs among at-risk families.
4)Defines "at-risk youth and young adults" as persons age 0 to
25 who meet the criteria as specified.
5)Transfers jurisdiction, personnel and current funding of nine
prevention programs currently within the jurisdiction from the
Board of Corrections, Department of Education and Department
of Social Services to the OVCGP.
6)Creates a 17-member advisory board that is required to meet
four times annually to make recommendations to the OVCGP. The
advisory board will include the Director of the OCJP, Director
of the Department of Health Services, Director of the
Department of the Youth Authority, a chief probation officer
and law enforcement officer to be appointed by the Governor, a
social or health practitioner, criminologist or juvenile
justice expert and school district or county board of
education to be appointed by the Director of OCJP, at least
three community-based organization representatives, two youth
members, two former youth offenders or gang members who are
presently working in a community-based organization and two
representatives from both a community based-alcohol program
and substance abuse program representatives.
7)Establishes the Youth Violence, Crime and Gang Prevention Fund
to be appropriated to specified programs.
8)Provides that the OVCGP shall be funded from the General Fund
an amount equal to an unspecified percentage amount of the
AB 2280
Page 3
Department of Youth Authority's operating budget.
9)Provides that additional funding will be provided to OVCGP
from revenue raised from the issuance of special vehicle
license plates.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the OCJP shall be responsible for specified
duties including, but not limited to, the development of
comprehensive statewide plan for the improvement of criminal
justice and delinquency prevention activity, receipt and
disbursement of federal and state funds for prevention
programs, and rendering technical assistance to the
Legislature, and both governmental, public and private
agencies. (Penal Code Section 13820-13823.)
2)Establishes the Gang Violence Suppression Program within the
OCJP to assist law enforcement agencies, school districts and
community-based organizations primarily engaged in the
suppression of gang violence. (Penal Code Section 13826 et
seq.)
3)Establishes the California Community Crime Resistance Program
whose broad goal is to initiate or expand crime prevention
efforts, including gang violence reduction programs, among
others. (Penal Code Section 13840 et seq.)
4)Establishes the Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program
within the OCJP. (Penal Code Section 13860 et seq.)
5)Establishes the California Gang, Crime, and Violence
Prevention Partnership Program to be administered by the
Department of Justice and whose goal is to reduce gang
activity, crime and youth violence in specified communities
across the state. (Penal Code Section 13825.1 et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, this bill
"provides for the consolidation of various programs into a
single Office of Youth Violence, Crime, and Gang Prevention.
Additionally, the bill provides for enhanced funding for youth
AB 2280
Page 4
and gang violence prevention programs. A single state
agency/office to oversee youth violence and gang prevention
programs would offer the following benefits: early
intervention has proven effective in reducing criminal
activity in adults; improve effectiveness and accountability
of existing programs; and ensure that prevention programs
target at-risk youth by meeting identifiable goals that are
shared across programs."
2)Background : Currently, there are more than 47 state programs
in various agencies which provide funding for these types of
programs. Twenty-one programs are specifically designed to
prevent youth or at-risk youth from becoming involved in
gangs, crime or violence and to deter the youth from further
involvement with the juvenile justice system. The other 26
programs were not created specifically to prevent youth
violence, crime or gangs, but are other preventative programs
such as after school programs, mentoring and mental health
counseling. Eleven departments or agencies administer the
programs with a total combined funding of $379.5 million.
Specifically, the state departments include the:
a)Alcohol and Drug Programs, which administers two programs;
b)Board of Corrections, which administers three programs;
c)Community Services and Development, which administers one
program;
d)Department of Education, which administers nine programs;
e)Health Services, which administers two programs;
f)Department of Justice, which administers one program;
g)Department of Mental Health, which administers two
programs;
h)Office of Child Development and Education, which
administers one program;
i)OCJP, which administers 17 programs;
j)Department of Social Services, which administers six
programs; and,
AB 2280
Page 5
aa) Youth Authority, which administers three programs.
3)Little Hoover Commission : In September 1994, the Commission
released "The Juvenile Crime Challenge: Making Prevention a
priority" which made the following conclusions:
a)"The critical element for combating juvenile crime in the
long run is leadership. The State must establish a high
profile, powerful organization that can provide the
leadership needed to put prevention at the top of the list
of crime-fighting strategies.
b)"Because of the many roots of crime, no single preventive
program is the "silver bullet" that will halt juvenile
crime. When the lives of troubled youths are examined, the
triggers for their actions are multiple: parents have
failed, schools have failed, public organizations have
failed and communities have failed. The concept that there
are consequences linked to decisions and actions is not
passed down to children. Reinvigorating these elements of
society so that they may provide children with solid values
and good decision-making skills requires multiple
strategies that can be put into place according to specific
needs of families neighborhoods and communities.
c)"Unfortunately, the universal agreement that prevention is
vital has been systematically undercut by a gradual but
accelerating shift in spending patterns over the last two
decades. That shift has seen the near elimination of early
intervention and prevention programs and the mushrooming of
"back-end" incarceration expenses. The pivotal player that
is well positioned to make a difference in the life of
juvenile delinquents is the probation officer - but
probation budgets have been compressed and outreach efforts
stripped to the point where many probation officers can do
little more than keep track of overwhelming caseloads on
paper. While tight fiscal constraints make it difficult to
put prevention first, such a shift in priorities is crucial
to halting the increasing amounts of violent juvenile
crime."
The Commission also made several recommendations covering six
issues to the Legislature.
AB 2280
Page 6
d)Consolidating all juvenile anti-crime efforts in a single,
high-level state agency to provide strong leadership and
accountability for results.
e)Directing all government agencies to make early
intervention and prevention programs a top priority.
f)Providing a continuum of options so that a range of
consequences addresses misconduct by juveniles at all
levels of severity.
g)Revising age, confidentiality and record-sealing laws to
increase flexibility in the juvenile justice system so that
appropriate decisions can be made and to acknowledge the
public's right to information.
h)Increasing the ability of the California Youth Authority to
provide needed treatment, training and education for
juveniles appropriately committed to state facilities.
4)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
AB 2280
Page 7
serve as a clearinghouse and central leadership forum on
statewide issues related to youth violence prevention."
5)Legislative Analyst's Office's (LAO) Overview of California's
Juvenile Justice System : In its Analysis of the 1997-98
Budget Bill, the LAO 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 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 goals of
protecting the welfare of the juvenile offender and protecting
the public that are sometimes contradictory. For example,
much discussion has centered on questions of which type of
court should have jurisdiction over certain types of juvenile
offenders, whether juvenile records should be confidential,
AB 2280
Page 8
and when rehabilitation should give way to punishment."
6)Public Comment Regarding Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs :
In March 1999, 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%.) Among
the findings were the following:
a)Four out of five voters (81%) indicate they would rather
invest in ways to prevent children from getting into
trouble than build more prisons and impose stricter
sentences (14%);
b)Voters' preference for prevention has increased gradually
over the past few years, as this year's findings compared
to 77% who favored prevention in 1996 and 78% in 1998;
c)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;
d)Sixty percent of voters responded that there is an
inadequate availability of youth violence prevention
programs;
e)Sixty-three percent of voters think there is no age at
which it is too late to help a young person who has gotten
involved in violence and crime; and,
f)Fifty-seven percent of voters feel that insufficient
resources are being allocated to youth violence prevention.
7)Should the Attorney General's Office be Part of the Advisory
Board : The DOJ currently administers the California Gang,
Crime and Violence Prevention Partnership Program pursuant to
AB 963 (Keeley), Chapter 885, Statutes of 1997. The program
was created to improve the capabilities of community-based
organizations and nonprofit agencies to provide a broader
range of crime and violence prevention services to at-risk
youth who participate in gang, criminal activity or violent
behavior. The program is allocated $3 million annually and
funding is limited to community-based and nonprofit agencies.
AB 2280
Page 9
The statute also prohibits any of the funds from being used
for suppression or incarceration-related activities. With the
DOJ having jurisdiction over subject matter that is so similar
to that proposed in this bill, it is probably appropriate that
the Attorney General be a part of the proposed advisory board.
8)Consolidation vs. Coordination : Various state agencies that
fund youth and violence prevention programs are working to
coordinate and partner their programs. It may be appropriate
to review the coordination and partnership programs to
determine if they are performing effectively and efficiently
prior to any consolidation effort.
9)Author's Proposed Amendments : The author plans to take
amendments that were discussed during the April 11, 2000,
hearing on AB 2280. The attached mock up reflects those
amendments.
10)Related Legislation : AB 235 (Kuehl) is currently on the
Assembly Inactive File. AB 565 (Florez) is currently in the
Senate Public Safety Committee. SB 2097 (Hayden) is awaiting
hearing before the Senate Public Safety Committee.
11)Prior Legislation : SB 483 (Schiff) and SB 822 (Lockyer) of
the 1997-98 Legislative Session were vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Boys and Girls Clubs of Fresno County
California Child, Youth and Family Coalition
California Hispanic Health Care Association
California State Association of Counties
Center for Non-Partisan Public Policy Development
Community Development Institute
Familias Unidas Counseling and Information Center
Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Hollywood Community Services
Huntington Youth Shelter
Liberia Del Pueblo, Inc.
Los Padrinos Youth Services
Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance, Inc.
AB 2280
Page 10
Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center
Round Valley Indian Heath Center, Inc.
Safe House
Strawberry Creek Center
The Salvation Army Hollywood Community Services
Torres & Torres Policy Consultants
Opposition
Chief Probation Officers of California
Office of the Attorney General
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Analysis Prepared by : Fredericka McGee / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744