BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
4
9
6
SB 496 (Maldonado)
As Amended April 23, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Business and Professions Code
AA:mc
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS:
REAL ESTATE LICENSES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 252 (Aanestad) - Chapter 13, Statutes of
2007
AB 236 (Bermudez) - Chapter 348, Statues 2003
Support:<1>California Association of Realtors; California
Association of Mortgage Brokers
---------------------------
<1> As listed in the April 27, 2009, analysis of the Senate
Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
("BPED"). Due to the quick timeframe within which this bill is
being heard in this Committee after BPED, the Committee is
listing support and opposition based on letters submitted to the
committee of first referral, and the Background Sheet completed
by the author's office and on file in the Committee offices. See
Comment 1.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageB
Opposition<2>:ACLU; National Employment Law Project
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS BE PROHIBITED FROM BEING LICENSED AS
REAL ESTATE AGENTS OR BROKERS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit registered sex offenders
from being licensed as real estate agents or brokers, as
specified.
Current law generally requires persons convicted of enumerated
sex offenses to register within five working days of coming into
a city or county, with specified law enforcement officials in
the city, county, or city and county where he or she is
---------------------------
<2> Id.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageC
domiciled, as specified.<3> (Penal Code 290.) Registration
generally must be updated annually, within five working days of
a registrant's birthday. (Penal Code 290.012(a).) In some
instances, registration must be updated once every 30 or 90
days, as specified. (Penal Code 290.011, 290.012.) Except
as noted below, the obligation to register as a sex offender is
for life.
Current law provides that persons whose registrable sex offenses
are nondisclosable to the public may obtain relief from the
duty to register upon obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation.
(Penal Code 290.5.) All others must obtain a governor's
pardon to obtain relief from the duty to register as a sex
---------------------------
<3> Penal Code section 290(b) provides: "Every person
described in subdivision (c) for the rest of his or her life
while residing in, or, if he or she has no residence, while
located within California, or while attending school or working
in California, as described in section 290.002 and 290.01, shall
be required to register with the chief of police of the city in
which he or she is residing, or if he or she has no residence,
is located, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is
residing, or if he or she has no residence, is located, in an
unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and,
additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the
University of California, the California State University, or
community college if he or she is residing, or if he or she has
no residence, is located upon the campus or in any of its
facilities, within five working days of coming into, or changing
his or her residence or location within, any city, county, or
city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily
resides, or, if he or she has no residence, is located."
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageD
offender.<4> A person otherwise eligible may apply for a
certificate of rehabilitation seven to ten years (depending on
the registrable sex offense) after release from custody or on
parole or probation, whichever is sooner. Certain registrable
sex offenders are not eligible to obtain a certificate of
rehabilitation. (Penal Code 4852.01, 4852.03.)
Current law relating to the licensure of real estate
professionals , as set forth in the analysis of this bill
prepared by the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and
Economic Development dated April 20, 2009, provides the
following:
1)Establishes in the Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency (BT&H), the Department of Real Estate (DRE), the
chief officer of which is the Real Estate Commissioner
and specifies that the Commissioner, through the
Department, is responsible for the regulation of real
estate transactions and licensure of real estate agents,
brokers and salespersons.
2)Specifies that the Commissioner shall enforce the Real
-------------------------
<4> Specifically, Penal Code section 290.5 (a)(2) provides:
"(2) A person required to register under Section 290, upon
obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation . . . shall not be
relieved of the duty to register under Section 290 , or of the
duty to register under Section 290 for any offense subject to
that section of which he or she is convicted in the future, if
his or her conviction is for one of the following offenses: (A)
Section 207 or 209 committed with the intent to violate Section
261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289. (B) Section 220, except assault to
commit mayhem. (C) Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a
felony. (D) Paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision
(a) of Section 261. (E) Section 264.1. (F) Section 266, provided
that the offense is a felony. (G) Section 266c, provided that
the offense is a felony. (H) Section 266j. (I) Section 267.
(J) Section 269. (K) paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of
Section 286, provided that the offense is a felony. (L)
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of, or subdivision (c), (d),
(f), (g), (i), (j), or (k) of, Section 286. (M) Section 288.
(N) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 288a, provided
that the offense is a felony. (O) Paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b) of, or subdivision (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), (j), or (k) of,
Section 288a. (P) Section 288.5. (Q) Subdivision (a), (b), (d),
(e), (f), (g), or (h) of Section 289, provided that the offense
is a felony. (R) Subdivision (i) or (j) of Section 289. (S)
Section 647.6. (T) The attempted commission of any of the
offenses specified in this paragraph. (U) The statutory
predecessor of any of the offenses specified in this paragraph.
(V) Any offense which, if committed or attempted in this state,
would have been punishable as one or more of the offenses
specified in this paragraph. (b) (1) Except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3), a person described in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) shall not be relieved of the duty to register
until that person has obtained a full pardon . . . . (2) This
subdivision does not apply to misdemeanor violations of Section
647.6. (3) The court, upon granting a petition for a
certificate of rehabilitation . . . if the petition was granted
prior to January 1, 1998, may relieve a person of the duty to
register under Section 290 for a violation of Section 288 or
288.5, provided that
the person was granted probation pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 1203.066, has complied with the provisions of Section
290 for a continuous period of at least 10 years immediately
preceding the filing of the petition, and has not been convicted
of a felony during that period." (emphasis added.)
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageE
Estate Law and has the full power to regulate and control
the issuance and revocation, both temporary and
permanent, of all licenses to be issued and to perform
all other acts and duties provided under the Real Estate
Law and that are necessary for its enforcement.
3)Specifies that a licensed real estate broker is a person
licensed as a broker, and that a real estate salesperson
is a person licensed as a salesperson pursuant to the
Real Estate Law.
4)Provides for specific grounds upon which a license of any
real estate licensee may be denied, revoked or suspended
including entering a plea of guilty, or if the licensee
has been found guilty of, or been convicted of a felony,
or a crime substantially related to the qualifications,
functions, or duties of a real estate licensee, after
being provided a due process hearing.
5)Provides that the Commissioner may, without a hearing ,
suspend the license of any person who procured the
issuance of a real estate license by fraud,
misrepresentation, deceit, or by making any material
misstatement of fact.
This bill would provide that, excepted as provided, with regard
to an individual who is required to register as a sex offender,
the Real Estate Commissioner shall be subject to the following
requirements:
(1) The commissioner shall deny an application as a real estate
salesperson or real estate broker pursuant to this part.
(2) If the individual is licensed under this part, the
commissioner shall revoke the license of the individual. The
commissioner shall not stay the revocation and place the
license on probation.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageF
(3) The commissioner shall not renew or reinstate the
individual's license under this part. The commissioner shall
not issue a stay of license denial and place the license on
probation.
This bill would require that, except as provided, a person
licensed as a real estate salesperson or real estate broker who
is convicted of an offense that requires the individual to
register as a sex offender shall, within five days of the
imposition of sentence, notify the commissioner.
This bill would provide that this section shall not apply to any
of the following:
(1) An individual who has been relieved of his or her duty
to register as a sex offender, or whose duty to register has
otherwise been formally terminated under California law or the
law of the jurisdiction that requires his or her registration
as a sex offender, as specified;
(2) An individual who has obtained a certificate of
rehabilitation and pardon and if his or her probation has been
terminated and the information or accusation has been
dismissed, as specified.
(3) An individual who is required to register as a sex
offender solely for misdemeanor indecent exposure, as
specified, providing, however, that "nothing in this paragraph
shall prohibit the commissioner from exercising his or her
discretion to discipline a licensee under other provisions of
state law based upon the licensee's conviction for indecent
exposure, as specified;
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageG
(4) Any administrative adjudication proceeding, as
specified, that is fully adjudicated prior to January 1, 2010.
"A petition for reinstatement of a revoked or surrendered
license shall be considered a new proceeding for purposes of
this paragraph, and the prohibition against reinstating a
license to an individual who is required to register as a sex
offender shall be applicable."
This bill additionally would provide that, five years after the
effective date of the revocation and three years after
successful discharge from parole, probation, or both parole and
probation if under simultaneous supervision, an individual may
petition the superior court in the county in which the
individual has resided for, at minimum, five years prior to
filing the petition to hold a hearing within one year of the
date of the petition, in order for the court to determine
whether the individual no longer poses a possible risk to the
public. The individual shall provide notice of the petition to
the Attorney General and to the commissioner at the time of its
filing. The Attorney General and the commissioner may present
written and oral argument to the court on the merits of the
petition.
This bill would provide that if the court finds that the
individual no longer poses a possible risk to the public, and
there are no other underlying reasons that the commissioner
pursued disciplinary action, the court shall order, in writing,
the commissioner to reinstate the individual's license within
180 days of the date of the order. The commissioner may issue a
restricted license . . . to a person subject to this section
subject to terms and conditions, . . . (as specified).
This bill would provide that if the court finds that the
individual continues to pose a possible risk to the public, the
court shall deny relief. The court's decision shall be binding
on the individual and the commissioner, and the individual is
prohibited from filing a subsequent petition under this section
based on the same conviction.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageH
This bill would provide that if the court denies the individual
a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon . . . the individual
may not petition the superior court for reinstatement of the
individual's license pursuant to this subsection.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
currently has about 170,000 inmates under its jurisdiction. Due
to a lack of traditional housing space available, the department
houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms and dayrooms.
California's prison population has increased by 125 percent (an
average of 4 percent annually) over the past 20 years, growing
from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing the
state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<5>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many prisoners
for the existing capacity. The Governor, the
principal defendant, declared a state of emergency in
2006 because of the "severe overcrowding" in
California's prisons, which has caused "substantial
----------------------
<5> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44-the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration-grew by an average of less than 1 percent
annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageI
risk to the health and safety of the men and women who
work inside these prisons and the inmates housed in
them." . . . A state appellate court upheld the
Governor's proclamation, holding that the evidence
supported the existence of conditions of "extreme
peril to the safety of persons and property."
(citation omitted) The Governor's declaration of the
state of emergency remains in effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure is
appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageJ
period of two or three years.<6>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Status of This Bill
This bill was double referred to the Senate Committee on
Business, Professions and Economic Development, where it is
scheduled to be heard on April 27th. This bill is set to be
heard in the Committee on April 28th, pending receipt, if it
passes the Committee of first referral.
2. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
This bill would prevent registered sex offenders from
obtaining real estate licenses. Current law allows
these dangerous predators to get a real estate
license. Real estate agents have complete access to a
person's home. When a house goes on the market, real
estate agents obtain keys to a person's house. They
also know if the house is occupied by a family and the
ages of any children and room in which they sleep. In
essence, sellers are unknowingly putting the keys to
their homes in the hands of sex offenders.
--------------------------
<6> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts For The Eastern District of California And The
Northern District Of California United States District Court
Composed Of Three Judges Pursuant To Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageK
3. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill essentially would prohibit
registered sex offenders from being licensed as a real estate
salesperson or real estate broker. The bill would allow the
following exceptions to this prohibition:
An individual who has been relieved of his or her duty
to register as a sex offender, as specified;
An individual who has obtained a certificate of
rehabilitation and pardon and if his or her probation has
been terminated and the information or accusation has been
dismissed, as specified;
An individual who is required to register as a sex
offender solely for misdemeanor indecent exposure; and
An individual who, as specified, petitions the superior
court and the court finds that the individual no longer
poses a possible risk to the public, and there are no other
underlying reasons that the commissioner pursued
disciplinary action, as specified.
4. Related License Restrictions
The analysis prepared by the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions and Economic Development dated April 20, 2009,
explains the following existing licensing restrictions:
SB 252 (Aanestad, Chapter 13, Statutes of 2007)
provided similar language and established similar
objectives regarding any individual seeking a license
or currently holding a license in dentistry from the
Dental Board of California. SB 252 was modeled after
AB 236 (Bermudez, Chapter 348, Statues 2003) which
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageL
prohibits any person registered as a sex offender from
being licensed under the Medical Practices Act. Both
of these measures provided for the inclusion of an
exception for those who are required to register as a
sex offender, solely because of a misdemeanor
conviction for indecent exposure under Penal Code
Section 314. . . .
5. Practical Effect
As currently drafted, it would appear that few if any registered
sex offenders would be excepted from the prohibition proposed by
this bill. While Committee staff was unable to discover any
data indicating how many registered sex offenders have received
pardons, thereby relieving them of the duty to register, it
seems most likely that such an action is rare. In fact, the
pardon provision of the bill would appear to have no legal
meaning or practical effect, since if someone receives a
certificate of rehabilitation and a pardon they no longer are
required to register, which is the standard used by this
bill.<7>
IS THE CERTIFICATE OF REHABILITATION AND PARDON PROVISION OF
THIS BILL ILLUSORY IN TERMS OF PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION TO THIS
BILL'S PROVISIONS?
In addition, this bill would allow an exception if a court finds
that an individual no longer poses a possible risk to the
public. Members may wish to consider whether any court could
make this finding under any circumstances.
ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION PROPOSED BY THIS BILL
---------------------------
<7> Committee staff is aware that Education Code section 87405
(b) uses this standard. The restriction in that section,
however, applies more broadly than this bill: that section
applies to persons convicted of any sex offense. Therefore,
with respect to that provision a person could be convicted but
given a certificate of rehabilitation and pardoned, in which
case the employment restriction would not apply. This bill,
however, is based on whether a person is required to register.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageM
LIKELY TO EVER APPLY TO ANY CASE?
6. Recidivism Among Sex Offenders
As indicated in the author's statement, this bill is based on
public safety concerns relating to the risk posed by registered
sex offenders. In its January 2008 report, the California Sex
Offender Management Board stated the following with respect to
recidivism among sex offenders:
Solid information about the recidivism of sex
offenders is one of the key building blocks for good
policy and effective practice in sex offender
management. If it were not for the concern that an
identified sex offender may offend again in the future
and create another victim, the questions about how to
best manage sex offenders living in California
communities would not be of such intense interest.
Knowing how likely it is that an individual sex
offender or a certain type of sex offender might
re-offend can drive many decisions. Similarly,
knowing what interventions actually reduce the chances
that a sex offender will re-offend is also extremely
important.
There is a growing body of solid knowledge about sex
offender recidivism. More
knowledge is certainly needed, especially in
California. But what is known about the rate of
recidivism for sex offenders appears to be frequently
misunderstood when it comes to developing policies for
successful sex offender management. Many of the
preconceived notions surrounding sexual abuse appear
to be based on myths and misconceptions rather then
empirical evidence. Sex offenders are often reputed
to be incorrigible and laws are, at times, justified
with statements that the majority of sexual offenders
will go on to re-offend. In a recent study, 200
citizens who were polled believed that sex offender
recidivism rates for new sex offenses, are
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageN
approximately 75%. Statements that sex offenders
cannot be
"cured" - a concept generally accepted by experts in
this field - have often been
misinterpreted to mean that they will inevitably
re-offend.
In fact, the majority of sex offenders do not
re-offend sexually over time. Additionally, research
studies over the past two decades have consistently
indicated that recidivism rates for sex offenders are,
in reality, lower than the
re-offense rates for most other types of offenders.
In a longitudinal study that followed 4,742 known sex
offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were charged
with or convicted of, a new sexual offense. The U.S.
Department of Justice found that 5% of 9,691 sex
offenders released from prisons in 1994 were
rearrested for new sex crimes within three years.
Recent research data from California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation indicate that fewer
than 4% of the convicted sex offenders released to
parole in 2003 were returned for a new sex offense
over the course of a three year period of living in
the community under parole supervision.<8>
. . .
When comparing the re-offense rates of sex offenders
with the re-offense rates of non-sex offenders, the
public may assume an astronomically high recidivism
rate for sex offenders that, in reality, cannot be
found in empirical research and official statistics.
In a large study of more than 38,000 prisoners of all
types who were released from U.S. prisons in 1994,
Meithei, Olson, and Mitchell (2006) found that:
26 % of sex offenders were rearrested for another
----------------------
<8> An Assessment of Current Management Practices of Adult Sex
Offenders in California, Initial Report (January 2008),
California Sex Offender Management Board, p. 68.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageO
sex crime,
33 % of violent offenders committed another violent
crime,
56 % of property offenders committed another
property offense,
61 % of public order offenders committed another
public order offense
These research findings caution the public and policy
makers against pursuing an
overwhelming focus of crime control measures on sex
offenders that may overlook the risk of serious
offenses committed by other offenders.
Nevertheless it remains true that sex crimes can have
such a devastating impact on their victims that even
"comparatively low" recidivism rates are still
unacceptably high and efforts to reduce them even
further are deserving of considerable investment of
efforts, resources and funding.<9>
In its January 2009 Progress Report, the Board stated in part:
The California Sex Offender Management Board has used
the following two
values as a guide when evaluating research, practice
and policy related to the
management of adult sex offenders.
(More)
----------------------
<9> Id., pp. 71-72.
1. In a time of limited resources the most
effective way to maximize public safety is to
allocate resources in a manner that ensures that the
highest risk populations receive supervision,
management and transition resources that are
commensurate with their risk.
2. Public safety is one of the fundamental
commitments that state and local governments make to
their community. The best way to honor this
commitment is to adopt practices which have been
demonstrated to be effective.<10>
IS THIS BILL CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUES IDENTIFIED BY THE SEX
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD?
The Board's January 2009 report also indicates it will conduct
further research relating to whether the sex offender registry
can be improved by using tools such as risk assessments to
re-focus who is required to register:
The research by this committee showed that California
is unique in requiring lifetime registration for all
sex offenses requiring registration, even those which
are considered less serious or which were committed by
offenders who are at low risk to reoffend. More
accurate up-to-date research shows that such offenders
are at much lower risk to reoffend than was previously
thought. Because California has had lifetime
registration since 1947, there and many offenders
registering who have committed lower risk offenses
many years ago who have not reoffended. In order to
focus scarce law enforcement resources on monitoring
offenders who pose a higher risk of reoffending, the
committee is studying a recommendation
that the duration of registration be linked to both
risk assessment and the seriousness of the offense.
Courts could consider these factors, as well as others
----------------------
<10> Available online at
http://www.casomb.org/docs/2009%20Progress%20Report%20V5.pdf.
(More)
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageQ
indicating rehabilitation or lack thereof, in
determining whether to end the registration duty
earlier than life for lower risk offenders. Removing
low risk offenders from the registry after a
sufficient period of time would give law enforcement
the ability to do more than simply register offenders
at the station. It
could free resources to allow for more in-field
compliance work focused on higher risk offenders.<11>
Members of the Committee may wish to discuss whether sex
offender registration alone is an adequate filter to indicate
risk for purposes of prohibiting persons from engaging in the
professions addressed by this bill. The current sex offender
registration applies so broadly that it can be difficult if not
impossible to say, based on registration status alone, if
someone ought not engage in a particular trade because they pose
a risk to public safety. For example, a registrant who was
convicted 20 years ago of having oral sex with his girlfriend
when he was 18 and she 17 cannot be distinguished from a serial
rapist based solely on the fact of registration - they both are
registered sex offenders. Registration is a filter, but
arguably not an ideal filter if the issue is risk. Members may
wish to consider whether blanket exclusions should be based on
risk not status and, as discussed above, whether the exceptions
this bill proposes adequately assess a registrant's risk.
IS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ALONE A SUFFICIENT INDICATOR OF
RISK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM A LINE OF WORK?
WOULD THIS BILL BE STRONGER IN FILTERING FOR RISK IF IT PROVIDED
FOR AN ASSUMPTION AGAINST LICENSURE UNLESS THE REGISTRANT COULD
ESTABLISH HE OR SHE WAS LOW RISK, BASED ON CERTAIN SPECIFIED
CRITERIA, INCLUDING A VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT?<12>
7. Other Lines of Work
---------------------------
<11> Id., pp. 11-12.
<12> California has a validated risk assessment instrument.
See Penal Code 290.04 et seq.
SB 496 (Maldonado)
PageR
Members may wish to consider whether the reasons for the
employment prohibitions like the one contemplated by this bill
also could be applied to other lines of work, and what that
might mean in terms of public safety. There are a number of
jobs where persons gain access to homes, families and children.
Appliance repair or delivery people, pest control management
personnel, plumbers, electricians, home appraisers - any number
of skilled and unskilled jobs provide access to people's homes.
There are approximately 85,000 registered sex offenders in
California communities. Their ability to sustain viable
employment is a critical factor in reducing the risk of
recidivism.<13> Members may wish to discuss and consider the
broader policy issues of employing the sex offender registration
statute as an employment restriction when a job entails access
to homes.
HOW IS THE WORK ADDRESSED BY THIS BILL DISTINGUISHABLE FROM MANY
OTHER LINES OF WORK WHERE STRANGERS HAVE ACCESS TO HOMES AND
FAMILIES?
***************
---------------------------
<13> See CSOMB January 2009 Progress Report, infra, ft. 7; p.
9.