Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterers program or, if a batterers program is not available, another appropriate counseling program. Existing law requires a batterers program to be approved by the probation department and specifies the standards for approving batterers programs. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

This bill would extend these provisions until July 1, 2026.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterers program or, if a batterers program is not available, another appropriate counseling program. Existing law requires a batterers program to be approved by the probation department and specifies the standards for approving batterers programs. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

This bill would extend these provisions until July 1, 2026.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterers program or, if a batterers program is not available, another appropriate counseling program. Existing law requires a batterers program to be approved by the probation department and specifies the standards for approving batterers programs. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires that the terms of probation granted to a person who has been convicted of domestic violence include, among other things, successful completion of a batterers program or, if a batterers program is not available, another appropriate counseling program. Existing law requires a batterers program to be approved by the probation department and specifies the standards for approving batterers programs. Existing law, until July 1, 2023, authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

This bill would delete the sunset date on existing law and make the above provision operative indefinitely.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 479

Author: Blanca Rubio (D)

Amended: 3/15/23 in Assembly

Vote: 27 - Urgency

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/6/23

AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Alternative domestic violence program

SOURCE: California District Attorneys Association

DIGEST:

This bill extends the sunset date of an existing six-county pilot program that provides an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer a program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the components of the batterer’s program otherwise outlined in state law, if the program meets certain requirements. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a).)
2. Requires the counties to develop the program in consultation with the domestic violence service providers and other relevant community partners. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(1).)
3. Requires the counties to perform a risk and needs assessment utilizing an assessment demonstrated to be appropriate for domestic violence offenders for each offender entering the program. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(2).)
4. Requires that the offender’s treatment within the program be based on the findings of the risk and needs assessment. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(3).)
5. Requires the program to include components that are evidence-based or promising practices. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(4).)
   
6. Requires the program to have a comprehensive written curriculum that informs the operations of the program and outlines the treatment and interventions modalities. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(5).)
7. Requires the offender’s treatment within the program to be for not less than one year in length, unless an alternative length is established by a validated risk and needs assessment completed by the probation department or an organization approved by the probation department. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(6).)
8. Requires the counties to collect data on participants in the program, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(7).)
9. Requires each participating county to report all of the following information annually to the Legislature:
10. The risk and needs assessment tool used for the program;
11. The curriculum used by each program;
12. The number of participants with a program length other than one year, and the alternative program lengths used;
13. Individual data on the number of offenders participating in the program;
14. Other individual data that the county is required by law to collect, as specified.
15. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(8)(A)-(E).)
16. Defines “evidence-based program or practice” as a program or practice that has a high level of research indicating its effectiveness, determined as a result of multiple rigorous evaluations including randomized controlled trials and evaluations that incorporate strong comparison group designs, or a single large multisite randomized study, and, typically, has specified procedures that allow for successful replication. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(1).)
17. Defines “promising program or practice” as a program or practice that has some research demonstrating its effectiveness but does not meet the full criteria for an evidence-based designation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(2).)
18. Provides that the above provisions sunset on July 1, 2023. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (f).)

This bill:

1. Extends the sunset date of the pilot program that provides an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.
2. Includes an urgency clause.

Background

AB 372 (Stone, Chapter 290, Statues of 2018) authorized the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the requirement of the batterer’s program under Penal Code section 1203.097. AB 372 was introduced to permit counties to offer batterer intervention programs that were more tailored to an individual offender’ needs and to update the curriculum of those programs to incorporate evidence-based practices.

Penal Code section 1203.099 requires participating counties to collect specified information regarding program participants, including “the offender’s outcome at the time of program completion, and six months after completion, including subsequent restraining order violations, arrests and convictions, and feedback provided by the victim if the victim desires to participate.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(7)(E).) Preliminary data on the alternative programs being offered by participating counties is promising. However, the most recent report on the pilot program notes that a “more nuanced” approach to examining local recidivism data is necessary to determining the success of the alternative programs in reducing domestic violence. (California State Association of Counties, AB 372 Legislative Report: Year 3, p. 16 <https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ab372_year_3_legislative_report.pdf [last visited May 31, 2023].) This conclusion was reached in part due to the fact that Penal Code section 1203.099 does not require new arrests or convictions to be related to domestic violence. The Year Three report found that for individuals who entered the program in fiscal year 2021, the second year of its existence, “nearly half (45%) had shown a positive completion of the program.” (Id. at p. 14.) Positive completion is defined as completing the program, and for some counties, paying all program fees.

Given that the pilot program has included some promising results, faced delays in implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is set to sunset this year, the bill’s supporters contend that the pilot program should be extended, in part, to allow for additional time to collect data on the program.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/26/23)

California District Attorneys Association (source)

California State Association of Counties

Chief Probation Officers’ of California

County of Santa Barbara

County of Santa Clara

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/26/23)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 4/27/23

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jim Patterson

Prepared by: Stephanie Jordan / PUB. S. /

6/28/23 11:12:24

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 479 Hearing Date: June 6, 2023

Subject: Alternative domestic violence program

HISTORY

Source: California District Attorneys Association

Prior Legislation: AB 372 (Stone), Ch. 290, Stats. 2018

AB 93X (Burton), Ch. 28, Stats. 1994

Support: California State Association of Counties; Chief Probation Officers’ of California; County of Santa Barbara; County of Santa Clara

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 79 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to extend the sunset date of an existing six-county pilot program that provides an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

Existing law authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer a program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the components of the batterer’s program otherwise outlined in state law, if the program meets certain requirements. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the counties to develop the program in consultation with the domestic violence service providers and other relevant community partners. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law requires the counties to perform a risk and needs assessment utilizing an assessment demonstrated to be appropriate for domestic violence offenders for each offender entering the program. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(2).)

Existing law requires that the offender’s treatment within the program be based on the findings of the risk and needs assessment. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(3).)

Existing law requires the program to include components that are evidence-based or promising practices. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(4).)

Existing law requires the program to have a comprehensive written curriculum that informs the operations of the program and outlines the treatment and interventions modalities. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(5).)

Existing law requires the offender’s treatment within the program to be for not less than one year in length, unless an alternative length is established by a validated risk and needs assessment completed by the probation department or an organization approved by the probation department. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(6).)

Existing law requires the counties to collect data on participants in the program, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(7).)

Existing law requires each participating county to report all of the following information annually to the Legislature:

• The risk and needs assessment tool used for the program;
• The curriculum used by each program;
• The number of participants with a program length other than one year, and the alternative program lengths used;
• Individual data on the number of offenders participating in the program;
• Other individual data that the county is required by law to collect, as specified.

(Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(8)(A)-(E).)

Existing law defines “evidence-based program or practice” as a program or practice that has a high level of research indicating its effectiveness, determined as a result of multiple rigorous evaluations including randomized controlled trials and evaluations that incorporate strong comparison group designs, or a single large multisite randomized study, and, typically, has specified procedures that allow for successful replication. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(1).)

Existing law defines “promising program or practice” as a program or practice that has some research demonstrating its effectiveness but does not meet the full criteria for an evidence-based designation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing law provides that the above provisions sunset on July 1, 2023. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (f).)

This bill extends the sunset date of the pilot program that provides an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence.

This bill include an urgency clause.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

While California has been a leader in addressing and reducing domestic violence, the complexity underlying these issues needs to be further addressed ensuring that all batterer intervention programs are utilizing evidence-based principles that hold offenders accountable while addressing their criminogenic needs and reducing their recidivism. The existing pilot program established in 2018 has been enthusiastically embraced by the criminal justice partners in the six counties specified. Continuing this program will allow more offenders to get help, as well as allow criminal justice partners to continue monitoring and collecting substantive data to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of the program.

1. State Auditor’s Report

In October 2022, the California State Auditor published its report on the state’s batterer interventions programs. The Auditor examined the administration and oversight of a sample of the state’s batterer intervention programs in five counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Los Angeles, and San Joaquin. The Auditor found that individuals convicted of domestic violence and who completed the required batterer’s intervention program were “far less likely to reoffend” than those who did not complete the program. However, nearly half of the offenders reviewed did not complete the full program, and the majority of those individuals subsequently reoffended. (State Auditor, Batterer Intervention Programs: State Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to Effectively Reduce Domestic Violence, Report 2021-113, p. 1 <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-113.pdf> [last visited May 31, 2023].)

The State Auditor found “probation departments did not consistently assess all offenders for underlying issues, such as mental health or substance abuse concerns, that might interfere with an offender’s ability to complete a program.” (Id. at 2.) Additionally, probation departments, program providers, and courts generally did not hold many of the offenders accountable for probation and program violations. (Ibid.) Finally, “even when notified about offenders’ violations, the courts, in some instances, referred the offenders back to a program without imposing additional consequences.” (Ibid.) The report opined that “decisions not to impose escalating penalties on offenders who violate their probation likely weakens the impact of programs.” (Ibid.)

The State Auditor concluded that many of the deficiencies identified with the administration and oversight of the batterer intervention system were due in part to the fact that “none of the five probation departments had established sufficient standards, policies, and procedures for overseeing program providers and ensuring program compliance.” (Ibid.) Lack of adequate oversight led some program providers to fail to supervise offenders appropriately or to report required information to the courts and probation departments. (Ibid.) In addition, the probation departments often failed to conduct required annual on-site visits of programs leading to program providers’ noncompliance going unnoticed which resulted in the approval or renewal of providers not in full compliance with state law. (Ibid.)

1. AB 372 Pilot Program

AB 372 (Stone) authorized the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the requirement of the batterer’s program under Penal Code section 1203.097. AB 372 was introduced to permit counties to offer batterer intervention programs that were more tailored to an individual offender’ needs and to update the curriculum of those programs to incorporate evidence-based practices.

Penal Code section 1203.099 requires participating counties to collect specified information regarding program participants, including “the offender’s outcome at the time of program completion, and six months after completion, including subsequent restraining order violations, arrests and convictions, and feedback provided by the victim if the victim desires to participate.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(7)(E).) Preliminary data on the alternative programs being offered by participating counties is promising. However, the most recent report on the pilot program notes that a “more nuanced” approach to examining local recidivism data is necessary to determining the success of the alternative programs in reducing domestic violence. (California State Association of Counties, AB 372 Legislative Report: Year 3, p. 16 <https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ab372_year_3_legislative_report.pdf> [last visited May 31, 2023].) This conclusion was reached in part due to the fact that Penal Code section 1203.099 does not require new arrests or convictions to be related to domestic violence. The Year Three report found that for individuals who entered the program in fiscal year 2021, the second year of its existence, “nearly half (45%) had shown a positive completion of the program.” (Id. at p. 14.) Positive completion is defined as completing the program, and for some counties, paying all program fees.

Given that the pilot program has included some promising results, faced delays in implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is set to sunset this year, the bill’s supporters contend that the pilot program should be extended, in part, to allow for additional time to collect data on the program.

1. Argument in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, the bill’s sponsor:

Since July 2019, this pilot program has permitted six counties (Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo) to offer an alternative program for domestic violence offenders that uses evidence-based practices. Experts in the field of domestic violence recognized that the required 52-week batterer’s program is not appropriate for every offender and there needs to be some flexibility in this type of program so that rehabilitation can be tailored to each offender.

Penal Code Section 1203.099 requires participating counties to perform a risk and needs assessment for every domestic violence offender entering the program. The program currently has a sunset date of July 1, 2023. Extending the sunset will ensure these alternatives remain available to individuals in these counties so that these counties can continue to address the individual needs of domestic violence offenders.

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 479

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:March 15, 2023

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

SUMMARY:

This bill extends the sunset on a statute that allows Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo counties to offer alternative domestic violence programs that do not comply with the batterer’s program requirements otherwise mandated by law. This bill extends the sunset from July 1, 2023 to July 1, 2026.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author:

While California has been a leader in addressing and reducing domestic violence, the complexity underlying these issues needs to be further addressed ensuring that all batterer intervention programs are utilizing evidence-based principles that hold offenders accountable while addressing their criminogenic needs and reducing their recidivism. The existing pilot program established in 2018 has been enthusiastically embraced by the criminal justice partners in the six counties specified. Continuing this program will allow more offenders to get help, as well as allow criminal justice partners to continue monitoring and collecting substantive data to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of the program.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 372 (Stone), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2018, authorized the counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer a program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the requirement of the batterer’s program, as specified, if the program meets certain requirements.

AB 479 extends the sunset date for the alternative domestic violence programs authorized by AB 372 and makes no other substantive changes to the law.

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

Date of Hearing: March 14, 2023

Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Extends the sunset on the program authorizing the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer programs for individuals convicted of domestic violence that do not comply with the batterer’s program requirements from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2026. Specifically, this bill:

1. Extends the sunset on the authorization to offer alternative domestic violence programs that do not comply with the batterer’s program requirements from July 1, 2023, to July 1, 2026.
   
2. Contains an urgency clause in order to prevent the authorization for alternative batterer’s intervention programs in participating counties to lapse on July 1, 2023.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer a program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the components of the batterer’s program otherwise outlined in state law, if the program meets certain requirements. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a).)
   
2. Requires the counties to develop the program in consultation with the domestic violence service providers and other relevant community partners. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(1).)
   
3. Requires the counties to perform a risk and needs assessment utilizing an assessment demonstrated to be appropriate for domestic violence offenders for each offender entering the program. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(2).)
   
4. Requires that the offender’s treatment within the program be based on the findings of the risk and needs assessment. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(3).)
   
5. Requires the program to include components that are evidence-based or promising practices. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(4).)
   
6. Requires the program to have a comprehensive written curriculum that informs the operations of the program and outlines the treatment and interventions modalities. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(5).)
   
7. Requires the offender’s treatment within the program to be for not less than one year in length, unless an alternative length is established by a validated risk and needs assessment completed by the probation department or an organization approved by the probation department. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(6).)
   
8. Requires the counties to collect data on participants in the program, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(7).)
   
9. Requires the counties report all of the following information annually to the Legislature:
   
   1. The risk and needs assessment tool used for the program;
      
   2. The curriculum used by each program;
      
   3. The number of participants with a program length other than one year, and the alternative program lengths used;
      
   4. Individual data on the number of offenders participating in the program;
      
   5. Other individual data that the county is required by law to collect, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (a)(8)(A)-(E).)
      
10. Defines “evidence-based program or practice” as a program or practice that has a high level of research indicating its effectiveness, determined as a result of multiple rigorous evaluations including randomized controlled trials and evaluations that incorporate strong comparison group designs, or a single large multisite randomized study, and, typically, has specified procedures that allow for successful replication. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(1).)
    
11. Defines “promising program or practice” as a program or practice that has some research demonstrating its effectiveness but does not meet the full criteria for an evidence-based designation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (c)(2).)
    
12. Provides that the law authorizing the named counties to operate alternative batterer’s programs sunsets on July 1, 2023. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099, subd. (f).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “While California has been a leader in addressing and reducing domestic violence, the complexity underlying these issues needs to be further addressed ensuring that all batterer intervention programs are utilizing evidence-based principles that hold offenders accountable while addressing their criminogenic needs and reducing their recidivism. The existing pilot program established in 2018 has been enthusiastically embraced by the criminal justice partners in the six counties specified. Continuing this program will allow more offenders to get help, as well as allow criminal justice partners to continue monitoring and collecting substantive data to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of the program.”
   
2. Evidence-Based Practices as Applied to Domestic Violence Offender Assessment, Treatment, and Supervision: “Domestic violence offenders generally have a high rate of recidivism. Studies using direct victim interviews over a period of time estimate repeat violence in the range of 40 to 80 percent of cases.” (Webster & Bechtel, Evidence-Based Practices for Assessing, Supervising and Treating Domestic Violence Offender (Aug. 2012) Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice, p. 10, citation in footnote omitted.) “[D]omestic violence is a complicated community problem and we have yet to figure out what works for effectively intervening with batterers to reduce recidivism. Research to date has indicated that the most common court-mandated batterer intervention programs do not reduce recidivism or alter batterers’ attitudes about violence.” (Id., at p. 12, citation in footnote omitted.) “Community supervision agencies are struggling with budget cuts, high caseloads and pressure to reduce failure rates. A growing body of literature points to four core practices that when implemented as a system can contribute to reductions in reoffending. These include (1) use a risk assessment tool to identify criminogenic risks and needs; (2) employ tailored supervision strategies and treatment plans; (3) implement a system of rewards and sanctions; and (4) provide skill-building support for probation officers.” (Id. at p. ii.)
   
3. State Auditor’s Report on Batterer Intervention Programs: In October 2022, the California State Auditor issued its audit of the state’s batterer interventions programs. The Auditor examined the administration and oversight by the probation departments and courts in five counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Los Angeles, and San Joaquin. The Auditor found that persons convicted of domestic violence were “far less likely to reoffend” if they completed a batterer’s intervention program. However, nearly 50 percent of program participants reviewed by the Auditor did not complete the program, and most of those participants later reoffended. (Cal. State Auditor, Batterer Intervention Programs: State Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to Effectively Reduce Domestic Violence, p. 1 <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-113.pdf> [last visited Mar. 9, 2023].)
   
   The State Auditor found “probation departments did not consistently assess all offenders for underlying issues, such as mental health or substance abuse concerns, that might interfere with an offender’s ability to complete a program.” (Id. at 2.) It also reported that “probation departments, program providers, and courts generally did not hold many of the offenders we reviewed accountable for probation and program violations.” (Ibid.) Moreover, “even when notified about offenders’ violations, the courts, in some instances, referred the offenders back to a program without imposing additional consequences,” which according to the Auditor “likely weakens the impact of programs.” (Ibid.)
   
   Specifically, the Auditor noted that “none of the five probation departments had established sufficient standards, policies, and procedures for overseeing program providers and ensuring program compliance.” (Ibid.) As a result, “program providers did not supervise offenders appropriately or report required information.” (Ibid.) The probation departments generally failed to address deficiencies in compliance with law by batterer’s program providers. (Ibid.)
   
   AB 372 (Stone) authorized the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer an alternative program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the requirement for batterer’s program under Penal Code section 1203.097. (Pen. Code, § 1203.099.) Whether these alternative programs for domestic violence offenders have achieved better outcomes than the batterer’s intervention programs the State Auditor analyzed remains an open question. Initial data on the alternative programs is promising. For example, whereas less than 50 percent of program participants reviewed by the State Auditor completed batterer’s intervention programs, “The vast majority (83 percent) of people who entered a domestic violence program during the first year of implementation were still in the program when data was collected for this program.” (California State Association of Counties, AB 372 Legislative Report: Year 1, p. 13 < https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ab372_year_1_legislative_report__final.pdf> [last visited Mar. 9, 2023.].) However, more recent data on the alternative programs is needed to fully access their efficacy.
   
   This bill would extend the sunset of these alternative programs to July 1, 2026, providing counties more time to collect and report program outcomes.
   
4. Department of Justice (DOJ) Oversight of Batterer’s Intervention Programs: AB 304 (Holden) would transfer responsibility for oversight of batterer’s intervention programs from probation departments to the DOJ. This responsibility would include approving, monitoring, and renewing approvals of program providers, and developing comprehensive statewide standards for batterer’s intervention programs. This bill would extend the authority of six counties—Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo—to provide programming to domestic violence offenders under specified circumstances that do not comply with current batterer’s intervention program requirements. (Pen. Code, § 1203.99.) Authorization for the pilot programs is set to expire July 1, 2023. This bill would extend the sunset date to July 1, 2026.
   
   AB 304 (Holden) likely will not limit the authority of the designated counties to continue offering alternative programming to domestic violence offenders. It is also possible that best practices learned from the counties participating in the pilot program might be adopted by DOJ for establishing statewide standards.
   
5. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, the bill’s sponsor: “Since July 2019, this pilot program has permitted six counties (Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo) to offer an alternative program for domestic violence offenders that uses evidence-based practices. Experts in the field of domestic violence recognized that the required 52-week batterer’s program is not appropriate for every offender and there needs to be some flexibility in this type of program so that rehabilitation can be tailored to each offender.
   
   “Penal Code Section 1203.099 requires participating counties to perform a risk and needs assessment for every domestic violence offender entering the program. The program currently has a sunset date of July 1, 2023. Eliminating the sunset will ensure these alternatives remain available to individuals in these counties so that these counties can continue to address the individual needs of domestic violence offenders.”
   
6. Argument in Opposition: None submitted.
   
7. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 304 (Holden) would require Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters, including, but not limited to, judges, referees, commissioners, mediators, and others as deemed appropriate by the council. AB 304 will be heard in this committee today.
      
   2. AB 467 (Gabriel) would clarify that the sentencing court in the county in which a domestic violence restraining order was issued may modify the order if the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the modification is in the best interest of the victim. AB 467 will be heard in this committee today.
      
      
8. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 616 (S. Rubio), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have expanded domestic violence educational requirements for judges, referees, commissioners, mediators, child custody recommending counselors, and evaluators involved in domestic violence proceedings. SB 616 was held on inactive file in the Senate.
      
   2. AB 2555 (B. Rubio), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have required a person convicted of a domestic violence offense to be placed in a sobriety-monitoring program that requires testing of, and abstention from, alcohol and controlled substances if the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. AB 2555 was referred to but did not receive a hearing in this committee.
      
   3. AB 372 (Stone), Chapter 290, Statutes of 2018, authorized the Counties of Napa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo to offer a program for individuals convicted of domestic violence that does not comply with the requirement of the batterer’s program, as specified, if the program meets certain requirements.
      
   4. SB 218 (Solis), Chapter 662, Statutes of 1999, provided, among other things, authorization for the court to order a restrained person to participate in a batterer intervention program that has been approved by the probation department, as specified.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association (Sponsor)
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California State Association of Counties
Chief Probation Officers of California
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
County of San Luis Obispo
County of Santa Barbara
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Inglewood Police Officers Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Napa County District Attorney's Office
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Upland Police Officers Association
Yolo County District Attorney

1 Private Individual

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: