Existing law generally subjects any person between 12 and 17 years of age, inclusive, who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law authorizes a juvenile court to place a minor on probation, without adjudging the minor a ward of the court, as specified.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2673

Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:March 18, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes Sacramento County to establish the Sacramento Youth Firearm Prevention Pilot Program (SYFPPP) through which the county may order a youth granted probation for an offense involving a firearm to participate in a gun violence prevention class.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No significant state costs. Regardless, consistent with Appropriations Committee rules and practice, this bill is eligible for placement on the suspense file because it has the primary purpose of creating a pilot program.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

As the number of youth firearm convictions climbs, AB 2673 creates a Sacramento County Youth Firearm Prevention pilot program to disrupt the cycle of violence through education, preventing costly engagement with the criminal legal system and making our community safer.

1. Background. This bill authorizes, but does not require, Sacramento County to establish a pilot program to require eligible youth to participate in a gun violence prevention class. Under the program, if a youth is granted probation for an offense in which they were either in possession of a firearm or an offense that involved the use of a firearm, the juvenile court may order the youth to participate in a gun violence prevention class from a local community agency designated by the court, if the service is available and the youth is likely to benefit from the service. The bill specifies that if the court orders participation in such a class, the court must consider the juvenile’s ability to pay for the class. The court may, but is not required to, develop a sliding fee schedule for the program. If the youth does not enroll in, participate in, or complete the program, the court may revoke the youth’s probation, unless the youth’s failure to complete these tasks was due to good cause. If a youth’s probation is revoked, they may be subject to harsher penalties, including placement in a youth detention facility.
2. Opposition. This bill does not have any registered support. In opposition, the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center writes:

First, the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 727 already has the authority to order youth to participate in various rehabilitative programs such as gun violence prevention programs, which is the same authority that this bill purports to create. The court may already order youth to enroll in and complete any available program that is reasonably related to the underlying offense and that would aid in the rehabilitation of the youth. There is no need to enact a new code section.

Second, the bill unlawfully passes the cost of attending the gun violence prevention class onto the youth. We believe this language runs afoul of SB 190 (effective 1/1/2018). SB 190 prohibits counties from charging fees assessed to parents and guardians for their children’s detention, representation by counsel, electronic monitoring, probation, supervision, and drug testing in the juvenile system.

Third, it is counterproductive to order this program as a condition of formal probation because (a) buy-in from youth is needed for it to be effective and (b) loading kids up with probation conditions sets them up to fail.…Studies have shown that excessive probation conditions lead to increased periods of incarceration based on technical violations (e.g. missing classes or failing to complete a program), which counterproductively prolongs and deepens the youth’s system involvement.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2024

Consultant: Elizabeth Potter

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Establishes the Sacramento Youth Firearm Prevention Pilot Program (SYFPP) Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows the County of Sacramento (the county) to establish SYFPP and to require participation in a gun violence prevention class for eligible youth.
   
2. States that an eligible youth is a youth who has been granted probation for an offense in which the youth is found by a juvenile court to have either been in possession of a firearm or that the offense involved the use of a firearm, in addition to any other order it make, the juvenile court may order the youth to participate in a gun violence prevention class from a local community agency designated by the court, if the service is available and the youth is likely to benefit from the service.
   
3. Requires services to be evidence based or research supported, trauma informed, culturally relevant, developmentally appropriate, and focused on public health.
   
4. Allows a court to revoke the youth’s probation for the failure to enroll in, participate in, or complete a program, except if the failure was with good cause.
   
5. States that a youth’s probation shall not be revoked for failure to enroll in, participate in,, or complete a program if the court-ordered program does not have capacity to enroll the youth, or ceases to offer the services the youth has been ordered by the court to receive.
   
6. Requires a court to determine the youth’s ability to pay.
   
7. Allows a court to develop a sliding fee schedule for a youth who is financially unable to pay.
   
8. States that a youth who meets certain financial conditions, as described in Government Code 68632, shall not be responsible for any costs.
   
9. Requires the county to collect and monitor all of the following data for each participant in the research program:
   
   1. Demographic information, including age, gender, race, ethnicity, familial status, and employment status;
      
   2. Criminal history;
      
   3. Failure to enroll in, complete, or successfully complete, the program; and,
      
   4. Outcomes at six months after completion, and one year completion, including subsequent arrests and convictions.
      
10. Requires an outcomes assessment of SYFPP by the county and to include, at minimum, all of the following:
    
    1. The curriculum used by the program;
       
    2. The number of participants enrolled in the program;
       
    3. The total number of participant that failed to successfully complete the program;
       
    4. Demographic data on the number of participants in the program;
       
    5. The effects of the pilot program on participant recidivism, including a one- and three year evaluation of the number of subsequent arrests in adjudications of the participants; and,
       
    6. A recommendation on whether to continue and expand the pilot program model beyond the conclusion of the pilot program.
       
11. Requires the outcomes assessment to be submitted to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety and the Senate Committee on Public Safety by January 1, 2030.
    
12. Sunsets the provisions of this bill on January 1, 2031.
    
13. Makes findings and declarations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Youth Reinvestment Grant Program (YRGP) within the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for the purpose of granting funds, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1450.)
   
2. Requires that three percent of funds allocated to YRGP be used for the purpose of implementing diversion programs for Native American children that use trauma-informed, community-based, and health-based interventions. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1453, subd. (a).)
   
3. States that priority must be given to diversion programs addressing the needs of Native American children who experience high rates of juvenile arrest, suicide, and alcohol abuse, among other things. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1453, subd. (b).)
   
4. Requires that a specified percentage of funds be allocated for the purpose of implementing diversion programs for children throughout local jurisdictions that are trauma-informed, evidence-based, and culturally relevant, among other things. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1454 subds. (a) & (b).)
   
5. States that jurisdictions with the highest need must be provide a certain minimum of funds and defines “highest needs” as areas with high juvenile arrest rates and high levels of racial or ethnic disparity in juveniles arrest rates. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §1454, subd. (b).)
   
6. Provides that BSCC is responsible for oversight and accountability of the program and that it must track funding, provide guidance to programs, and contract with a research firm to conduct a statewide evaluation of the grant, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1455.)
   
7. States that the YRGP funds must be allocated by the BSCC through a competitive grant process, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1458.)
   
8. Establishes the Office of Youth and Community Restoration (OYCR) in the California Health and Human Services Agency, whose mission is to promote trauma responsive, culturally informed services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system that support their successful transition to adulthood and help them become responsible, thriving, and engaged members of the community. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 2200, subds. (a) & (b).)
   
9. Provides that all juvenile justice grant administration functions in the Board of State and Community Corrections shall be moved to the OYCR no later than January 1, 2025. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 2200, subd. (h).)
   
10. Establishes the California Violence Intervention Program (CalVIP), to be administered by the BSCC. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (a).)
    
11. States that the purpose of CalVIP is to improve public health and safety by supporting effective community gun violence reduction initiatives in communities that are disproportionately impacted by community gun violence. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (b).)
    
12. Defines “community gun violence” to mean intentional acts of interpersonal violence involving a firearm, generally committed in public areas by individuals who are not intimately related to the victim, and which result in physical injury, emotional harm, or death. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (b).)
    
13. States that CalVIP grants shall be used to develop, support, expand, and replicate evidence-based community gun violence reduction initiatives, including, without limitation, hospital-based violence intervention programs, evidence-based street outreach programs, and focused-deterrence strategies, that seek to interrupt cycles of community gun violence and retaliation in order to reduce the incidence of homicides, shootings, and aggravated assaults. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (c).)
    
14. States that CalVIP grants shall be made on a competitive basis to cities that are disproportionately impacted by community gun violence, to community-based organizations that serve the residents of those cities, including tribal governments, and to counties that have on or more cities disproportionately impacted by community gun violence within their jurisdictions. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (d).)
    
15. States that for purposes of CalVIP, a city is disproportionately impacted by community gun violence if any of the following are true:
    
    1. The city experienced 20 or more homicides per calendar year during two or more of the three calendar years immediately preceding the grant application;
       
    2. The city experienced 10 or more homicides per calendar year and had a homicide rate that was at least 50%higher than the statewide homicide rate during two or more of the three calendar years immediately preceding the grant application; or,
       
    3. An applicant otherwise demonstrates a unique and compelling need for additional resources to address the impact of community gun violence in the applicant’s community. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (e)(1)-(3).)
       
16. States that an applicant for a CalVIP grant shall submit a proposal, in a form prescribed by the board, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (f).)
    
17. States that in awarding CalVIP grants, the board shall give preference to applicants whose grant proposals demonstrate the greatest likelihood of reducing the incidence of community gun violence in the applicant’s community, without contributing to mass incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (g).)
    
18. Requires the amount of funds awarded to an applicant to be commensurate with the scope of the applicant’s proposal and the applicant’s demonstrated need for additional resources to address community gun violence in the applicant’s community. (Pen. Code, § 14131, subd. (h).)
    
19. States that permission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of an applicant’s financial condition shall be granted initially to all of the following persons:
    
    1. An applicant who is receiving public benefits under one or more of the following programs which includes, but is not limited to:
       
       1. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and State Supplementary Payment (SSP), as specified;
          
       2. Medi-Cal; and,
          
       3. Unemployment compensation.
          
    2. An applicant whose monthly income is 200 percent or less of the current poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of the United States Code, as specified, or a successor statute or regulation.
       
    3. An applicant who, as individually determined by the court, cannot pay court fees without using moneys that normally would pay for the common necessaries of life for the applicant and the applicant’s family, as specified.
       
    4. A person who files a petition for appointment of a fiduciary in a guardianship or conservatorhship, or files pleadings as the appointed fiduciary of a conservatee or ward, when the financial condition of the conservatee or ward meets the standard for a fee waiver, as specified above in (a), (b), or (c). (Gov. Code § 68632.)
       

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “As the number of youth firearm convictions climbs, AB 2673 creates a Sacramento County Youth Firearm Prevention pilot program to disrupt the cycle of violence through education, preventing costly engagement with the criminal legal system and making our community safer.”
   
2. Programs for Harm Reduction in California: The CalVIP grant program was established in 2017 and replaced the California Gang Reduction Intervention and Prevention grant program. According to the BSCC website “In October 2019 Governor Newsom signed the Break the Cycle of Violence Act (AB 1603). AB 1603 codified the establishment of CalVIP and defined its purpose: to improve public health and safety by supporting effective violence reduction initiatives in communities that are disproportionately impacted by violence, particularly group-member involved homicides, shootings, and aggravated assaults. The Break the Cycle of Violence act specifies that CalVIP grants shall be used to support, expand and replicate evidence-based violence reduction initiatives, including but not limited to:
   

• Hospital-based violence intervention programs,
• Evidence-based street outreach programs, and
• Focused deterrence strategies.
  

“These initiatives should seek to interrupt cycles of violence and retaliation in order to reduce the incidence of homicides, shootings, and aggravated assaults and shall be primarily focused on providing violence intervention services to the small segment of the population that is identified as having the highest risk of perpetrating or being victimized by violence in the near future.” (https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_cpgpcalvipgrant/ [as of April 3, 2024])

In 2023 the purpose of CalVIP changed. Rather than focusing on various forms of violence, including shootings, assaults, and homicides in general, CalVIP’s focus is community gun violence.

The YRGP also has similar goals. In 2018, the YRGP was established for the purpose of implementing trauma-informed diversion programs for minors. This program covers local youth, including youth in tribal communities.

1. Sacramento County Youth Firearm Convictions: According to information provided by the author, “The number of minors being convicting of firearm offenses in Sacramento County is steadily increasing over the last five years.
   

This bill would allow the County of Sacramento to establish SYFPP to require a gun violence prevention program for eligible youth over the next five years. In addition, this bill would require the County of Sacramento to collect relevant data to evaluate the efficacy of SYFPP.

1. Argument in Support: None submitted.
   
2. Argument in Opposition: The Pacific Juvenile Defense Center argues, “While PJDC is interested in the possibility of collaborative, youth- and community-centered, evidence-based approaches to addressing youth firearm possession in a manner that prevents firearm violence while also diverting youth from deep-end delinquency system involvement, this bill does not currently represent such an approach. As written, this bill simply reiterates the status quo while placing additional burdens on system-involved youth in Sacramento County. As detailed below, the current language would simply make juvenile probation more difficult and more likely to end in incarceration for Sacramento County youth while failing to do anything new to address the root causes of guns in the hands of youth in the community.
   
   …
   
   “First, the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 727 already has the authority to order youth to participate in various rehabilitative programs such as gun violence prevention programs, which is the same authority that this bill purports to create. The court may already order youth to enroll in and complete any available program that is reasonably related to the underlying offense and that would aid in the rehabilitation of the youth. There is no need to enact a new code section.
   
   “Second, the bill unlawfully passes the cost of attending the gun violence prevention class onto the youth. We believe this language runs afoul of SB 190 (effective 1/1/2018). SB 190 prohibits counties from charging fees assessed to parents and guardians for their children’s detention, representation by counsel, electronic monitoring, probation, supervision, and drug testing in the juvenile system.
   
   “Third, it is counterproductive to order this program as a condition of formal probation because (a) buy-in from youth is needed for it to be effective and (b) loading kids up with probation conditions sets them up to fail. Youth placed on juvenile probation in Sacramento County are already subject to dozens of complex terms and conditions of probation, including a condition that this bill simply duplicates: to participate in community-based interventions as directed by the court. Studies have shown that excessive probation conditions lead to increased periods of incarceration based on technical violations (e.g. missing classes or failing to complete a program), which counterproductively prolongs and deepens the youth’s system involvement.”
   
3. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2064 (Jones-Sawyer), would establish the Community Violence Interdiction Grant Program CVIGP and requires it to be administered by the California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) to provide funding to local community programs for community-driven solutions to decrease violence in neighborhoods and schools.
      
   2. AB 2267 (Jones-Sawyer), would re-establish YRGP and designates OYCR to administer it. AB 2267 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 762 (Wicks), Chapter 421, Statutes of 2023, changed the purpose of the CalVIP, as well as the eligibility requirements for the grant, and makes the program permanent.
      
   2. AB 912 (Jones-Sawyer), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have provided for the establishment, expansion, and funding for early-violence-intervention programs, school-based physical and mental health services, and youth-recreational activities, contingent upon appropriation. AB 912 was vetoed by the Governor and stricken from the file.
      
   3. AB 1454 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 584, Statutes of 2019, revised and recast the Youth Reinvestment Grant Program by increasing the maximum grant award from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 and allowing nonprofit organizations to apply for grants through the program.
      
   4. AB 1603 (Jones-Sawyer) Chapter 735, Statutes of 2019, codified the establishment of the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program and the authority and duties of BSCC in administering the program, including the selection criteria for grants and reporting requirements to the Legislature
      
   5. SB 493 (Bradford), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have revised components of the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, including by requiring funded programs to be modeled on trauma-informed and youth development approaches in collaboration with community-based organizations (CBOs), requiring no less than 95 percent of specified funds appropriated to counties be allocated to CBOs and non-law enforcement government entities, and changing the composition of county juvenile justice coordinating councils. SB 493 was held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense calendar.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None

Opposition

Pacific Juvenile Defense Center

Analysis Prepared by: