BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair 2005-2006 Regular Session AB 2051 A Assembly Member Cohn B As Amended June 26, 2006 Hearing Date: August 8, 2006 2 Family Code; Health & Safety Code; 0 Penal Code 5 GMO:rm 1 SUBJECT Domestic Violence: Fees for Registration of Domestic Partnerships DESCRIPTION The bill would establish in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) a grant program for domestic abuse prevention in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, and establish fees of $23 in addition to the registration fee for domestic partnerships in order to fund this grant program. It would require the OES to conduct training workshops specific to domestic violence in the LGBT community, and to include at least one member from the LGBT community on its advisory council. The $23 fee would not apply to heterosexual domestic partners who are 62 years old or older. The bill would additionally require the Peace Officers Standard Training courses to contain a specific curriculum component in domestic violence involving the LGBT community. The bill would also require the Department of Health Services (DHS) to prepare an LGBT-specific domestic abuse brochure for the Secretary of State to print and make available to persons who qualify as domestic partners for registration purposes. This portion of the bill would be contingent on available funding. In addition, this bill (more) AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 2 would require the DHS advisory council on the battered women's shelter grant program to include LGBT representation. (This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in committee.) BACKGROUND According to the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, there are many barriers to addressing domestic violence (DV) in the LGBT community, one of which is that DV is generally considered to be an issue faced only by heterosexual women. The Taskforce cites studies of lesbian couples which found that 22 to 46 percent of lesbians have been in physically violent same-sex relationships. In 1997, the Gay Men's DV project conducted a survey of over 2,000 men in Boston and found that 25 percent had experienced DV. The Taskforce further cites a survey of 12 service organizations nationwide that yielded 4,048 reported cases of LGBT DV in 2000. The Taskforce asserts that this number likely represents only a small portion of actual cases nationwide. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) reports that sometimes LGBT domestic violence victims are inappropriately arrested in cases where they are physically larger or perceived to be stronger than the assailant. The organization states that survivors of same-sex abuse often face ignorance and/or prejudice in treatment from medical providers, DV specialists, law enforcement, and other service providers who may lack training in the unique challenges confronting LGBT victims. Furthermore, the Coalition states, gay men have difficulties finding DV service and shelters which have traditionally been available only to battered women. The NCAVP reports that in 2003, the 6,253 cases of LGBT domestic abuse reported by programs across the country represent a 13 percent increase from the cases reported by the same programs in 2002. The increase included six domestic violence-related deaths. Of the victims in the report for whom race was known, 44 percent were white, 25 percent were Latino/Latina, 15 percent were African American, 5 percent were Asian Pacific AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 3 Islander, and 4 percent were multiracial. Additionally there was a 54 percent increase in reports from victims under the age of 30. In April, 2005, the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence held hearings, where extensive testimony highlighted the incidence of domestic violence in the LGBT community, and it was generally acknowledged that the current funding stream for domestic violence shelters and services do not meet the needs of the LGBT community specifically. On July 1, 2005, Central California Pride Network, an organization that operated the only LGBT-specific domestic violence shelter in the nation, closed its doors and hotline due to insufficient funding. At the same time, two other agencies, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center (LAGLC) and the Community United Against Violence (CUAV), lost 100% of their domestic violence funding when the DHS changed its funding criteria to allow only "shelter-based" agencies to be eligible for funding under the existing grant program. This bill was originally drafted to make the existing grant program (funded by $23 added on to marriage license fees) gender-neutral and thus ensure that DV shelters catering to the LGBT community have a competitive chance to obtain grants from the DHS. However, the severe deficiency in funding of domestic violence shelters that provide services to battered women and their children caused an outcry among the existing domestic violence shelter providers. Subsequently, the bill was amended to create a separate fund for DV programs that are specific to the LGBT community. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1. Existing law requires the DHS to prepare and publish a brochure containing information about genetic defects and diseases, acquired immune deficiency (AIDS) syndrome, and information concerning DV including a statement that DV is against the law and resources where victims may seek assistance. Brochures are made available to the county clerks who are required to give the brochure to each applicant for a marriage license. AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 4 This bill would require the DHS to make this brochure available to the Secretary of State (SOS) for distribution to persons registering as domestic partners. It would also require the DHS to prepare an LGBT-specific brochure relevant to domestic abuse, as funding allows, and to make the brochure available to the SOS for printing and distribution. This bill would require the DHS to include an LGBT community representative on the DHS advisory council on domestic violence services. This bill contains legislative declarations relative to the problem of domestic violence in the LGBT community, and makes findings that this population is underserved or unserved. The bill specifies legislative intent that a goal or purpose of the Department of Health Services shall be to ensure that all victims of domestic violence in the LGBT community are served for purposes of domestic violence and receive comprehensive, quality service. 2. Existing law requires the SOS to establish fees for the costs of processing forms for registering domestic partnerships. This bill would impose a $23 fee upon persons registering as domestic partners to be used for developing and supporting a training curriculum specific to domestic abuse in the LGBT community, for supporting providers of services to the LGBT community in regard to domestic violence, and for providing LGBT-specific brochures on domestic abuse. The fee would be placed in the Equality in Prevention and Services for Domestic Abuse Fund, to be administered by the Office of Emergency Services (OES). 3. Existing law requires the OES to conduct statewide training workshops on domestic violence for providers, law enforcement, and local centers. Existing law requires OES to develop and disseminate information on domestic violence. This bill would require such training workshops to include a curriculum component that is specific to domestic abuse in the LGBT context. AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 5 This bill would require the OES to include an LGBT community representative on the OES advisory council on domestic violence. 4. Existing law requires specified training for law enforcement officers in regard to domestic violence. The training is developed and conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). This bill would require the POST training programs to include training in domestic violence in the context of the LGBT community. COMMENT 1. Need for the bill In support of AB 2051, the author states: Currently there is no government source that systematically reports LGBT domestic violence and statistics on the rate of abuse in the LGBT community. However a number of studies have reviewed the prevalence of domestic abuse in the gay and lesbian community?[and] it appears that the prevalence of domestic abuse in gay and lesbian relationships is comparable to the prevalence in heterosexual relationships? This bill will ensure that LGBT victims of intimate partner abuse have access to culturally appropriate education and services that encourage them to break the cycle of violence?From a community perspective, many LGBT victims are afraid to access shelter services for fear of "outing" themselves or being further harmed by service providers who lack the understanding and sensitivity to meet their needs. Gay male and transgender victims may feel particularly uncomfortable at a woman's shelter. LGBT victims of domestic violence are much more likely to seek safe havens at community centers and organizations that cater directly to the LGBT community. In addition, law enforcement, domestic violence shelters and other providers require AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 6 better training to serve LGBT victims, especially in parts of the state that do not have LGBT-specific organizations. 2. Author's amendments Author's amendments would exempt, from the $23 fee, heterosexual persons who are 62 years old or older and registering as domestic partners. 3. Opposition by POST Commission The POST Commission opposes AB 2051 because the bill would add LGBT-specific content to the current POST curriculum on domestic violence. The Commission states: The Commission's concern centers on narrowing the focus in law to specify any race, age, sexual orientation or creed in matters involving domestic violence? Sufficient domestic violence training curriculum relevant to issues that include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons is already delivered to all peace officers. A minimum requirement of eight hours of domestic violence [training], including the legal criteria for qualification as a domestic partner, is incorporated into the basic academy training. In addition, each peace officer?receives the following minimums of instruction: six hours of victimology/crisis intervention, twenty-four hours of cultural diversity (including hate crimes, sexual harassment and racial profiling), a domestic violence scenario test, and six hours of constitutional law (including equal protection clauses of the California and Federal constitutions). The Commission also states that since 1996 it has continually funded a course called "Tools for Tolerance," which is presented by the Museum of Tolerance, and since 1997 has delivered a 40-hour course on domestic violence [funded by the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)] that addresses the issues raised by AB 2051. Finally, the Commission cites the California Department AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 7 of Justice statistic that shows homicide rates for heterosexual domestic violence is 15 times that in the non-heterosexual context, and that the effectiveness of training law enforcement on domestic violence has resulted in dramatic reductions over time (reduction by 56,151 cases from 1994 to 2003, and by 75,509 cases involving a weapon over the same period). Therefore, the POST Commission contends that the additional training that this bill would require to specifically address domestic violence in the LGBT context is unnecessary. 4. Supporters' arguments and other opposition contentions Supporters of AB 2051 stress the dearth of services provided to LGBT persons who are victims of domestic violence. According to the Assembly Select Committee hearings held last year, there are less than a handful of LGBT specific programs in California, and those that exist either do not receive state funding or have had their funding cut or eliminated during the last round of state restructuring. Community United Against Violence (CUAV) states that "while the legal landscape for LGBT families is changing rapidly - including changes in parental rights, separation processes and domestic partnership and marriage rights - resources have not been established to help survivors of domestic violence navigate these monumental changes? AB 2051 takes the first critical steps to implement some of the recommendations that grew out of last year's hearings?and to guarantee that the Legislature takes swift action on this overlooked issue." The Junior Leagues of California also support AB 2051 because it would address the impact of violence on the community through prevention, intervention, and education. Some opponents point to the lack of services to male victims of female aggressors in a heterosexual domestic violence situation, and indicate that services should be available to all, not just to women and their children. In particular, a group called Peace Creations argues it has provided batterer's intervention services to men and women alike, and states that since "domestic violence AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 8 victims include men (both heterosexual and homosexual) as well as transgender individuals?the bill [should be] gender inclusive? This would relieve gender bias as found in many areas in this field and begin the process of a holistic approach to the problem." (Letter dated April 24, 2006.) However, the author notes that this bill does not intend to address any inequality or deficiency in current law, except that which affects services to the LGBT community. On the other hand, the Secretary of State originally opposed the $23 increase in fees to registration of domestic partnerships because the funds were to be used by the SOS for developing, printing and dissemination of the brochure to domestic partners. The increase in fees would triple the current cost for registration, the SOS contended, and would affect the 62-year old heterosexual couples who want to register. The bill has since been amended to require the DHS to produce the brochures instead, and today's amendments would exempt the 62-year old heterosexual couple from the increase in fees. However, the $23 fee would still be charged, under this bill, to fund domestic violence services administered by the OES. It would instead go to the Equality in Domestic Abuse Prevention and Services Fund for grants to serve the LGBT community. Support: City of West Hollywood; State Public Affairs Committee of the Junior Leagues of California; Family Law Section of the State Bar of California; California Teachers Association; State Controller Steve Westly; the San Diego LGBT Community Center; Community United Against Violence (CUAV); Gay and Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast (GALA) Opposition: Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission (Canada); California Parents United, Inc.; Secretary of State; Peace Creations; one faculty member in the Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Canada; one faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Massachusetts (Lowell); Grant Joint Union High School Domestic Violence Batterer's Treatment Program; California Alliance for Families and Children; Domestic Abuse Helpline AB 2051 (Cohn) Page 9 for Men and Women; one faculty member of the Department of Psychology, California State University at Long Beach; several individuals HISTORY Source: Equality California Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legislation: None Known Prior Vote:Asm. Jud. (Ayes 6, Noes 2) Asm. Pub. S. (Ayes 4, Noes 2) Asm. Appr. (Ayes 13, Noes 5) Asm. Flr. (Ayes 49, Noes 29) Sen. Health (Ayes 5, Noes 4) **************