Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly approves AB 1376 to limit length of juvenile probation and require reviews
Summary
The Assembly passed AB 1376 to create a presumption juvenile probation ends at nine months unless the court finds cause to extend it; the bill passed 46-17 after extensive floor debate about public safety and rehabilitation.
The California State Assembly on May 14 approved AB 13 76, authored by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, to limit the length of noncustodial wardship probation for youth and to require regular judicial review. The measure passed on a 46-17 roll call.
Under AB 13 76, the bill establishes a presumption that probation for youth under noncustodial wardship should terminate at nine months unless a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that continued probation is warranted. If extended, the bill requires review hearings every six months and mandates that probation conditions be developmentally appropriate and individualized.
"Our youth probation system is broken," Bonta said on the floor, summarizing the bill’s three principal changes: the nine-month presumption, six-month review hearings when probation is extended, and a requirement that probation conditions be reasonable and tailored. He told colleagues that more than 10,000 young people were placed on wardship probation in California in 2023 and that many youth face dozens of probation conditions that can lead to technical violations.
Supporters argued the reform reduces re‑involvement with the justice system and focuses supervision on rehabilitation. "This bill supports rehabilitation by establishing essential safeguards to protect kids on community probation from unnecessarily long probation terms," said Assemblymember Alhora, citing research that extended probation increases the risk of recidivism.
Opponents raised public-safety concerns and argued probation departments need sufficient time and tools to supervise youth, particularly those who committed violent offenses. "We have a failed approach to criminal justice reform that the left has been advancing for years with absolutely devastating and dangerous impacts on our communities," said Assemblymember De Maio during floor debate, urging a no vote and arguing that longer probation periods can be necessary in some counties.
Floor debate included testimony that some counties already use shorter review cycles. The author noted that 11 counties — Butte, El Dorado, Riverside, Yolo, Amador, Lassen, Mariposa, Santa Clara, Solano, Tulare, and San Diego — had practices aligned with shorter review periods. Supporters also noted racial disproportionality in the juvenile system and cited studies showing extended probation can harm development and prospects for rehabilitation.
Assemblymembers on both sides said they wanted youth to be held accountable while also receiving services to prevent recidivism. The bill allows judges discretion to extend probation if the court finds by the required evidentiary standard that the extension serves the youth’s and the community’s interests.
The Assembly recorded 46 ayes and 17 noes. Proponents said the measure balances public safety and rehabilitation by requiring judicial findings for extensions and by mandating periodic reviews and reasonable conditions.
Outcome: AB 13 76 approved by the Assembly on May 14, 2025; roll call 46-17. The measure now proceeds in the legislative process; floor debate emphasized implementation, county variation in practice, and the need for support services for youth.
