BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
5
8
3
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
As Amended March 31, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Penal Code
AA:mc
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS:
ADDRESS DATABASE
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BE REQUIRED TO CREATE A DATABASE
CONTAINING CERTAIN HOUSING INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTERED SEX
OFFENDERS FOR USE BY STATE AGENCIES CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS
RELATING TO SEX OFFENDERS, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to require the Department of Justice
to create a database containing certain housing information
about registered sex offenders for use by state agencies
conducting investigations relating to sex offenders, as
specified.
Existing law requires a person convicted of specified sex
offenses to register upon release from incarceration, placement,
commitment, or release on probation. (Pen Code 290 et seq.)
Sex offender registration consists of the following:
A written statement giving information required by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and giving the name and address
of place of employment and employer;
Fingerprints and a current photograph taken by the
registering official;
The license plate number of any vehicle owned, driven by or
registered to the registrant;
Notice that the registrant may have a duty to register in
another state upon relocation; and
Adequate proof of residence. (Penal Code 290.15.)
This bill would require DOJ to "classify the address at which a
registered sex offender resides with a unique identifier for
address. The identifier shall include a description of the
nature of the dwelling, including, but not limited to, a single
family residence, an apartment, a motel, or a licensed facility.
Each address classified and its association with any specific
registered sex offender shall be stored in a private searchable
database maintained by the department. The department shall
make that information available to the State Department of
Social Services or any other state agency when the agency needs
the information for investigative responsibilities relative to
sex offenders."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION IMPLICATIONS
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageC
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% (an average
of 4% 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.<1>
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
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.
----------------------
<1> "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% 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 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageD
. . . 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
period of two or three years.<2>
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.
---------------------------
<2> 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 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageE
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states in part:
To ensure that registered adult sex offenders are not
residing in licensed facilities that serve children,
SB 583 would require the Department of Justice to
assign a unique identifier to each registered address
in its sex offender database, indicating the type of
residence (i.e., private residence, licensed or
unlicensed facility).
It would also require the Department of Justice to
develop a process that would allow for the generation
and disclosure between agencies (such as Social
Services and Alcohol and Drug Programs) on sex
offender residence data on an as-needed basis.
. . .
SB 583 will provide state agencies with an effective
tool in the monitoring of registered sex offenders,
enabling them to share critical information that would
well serve in the protection of children and families
in California. . . .
The Department of Justice's database contains
addresses of registered sex offenders, but it does not
identify whether the addresses are a private
residence, a licensed residential facility or hotel
because there is no requirement to report this
information.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would require the Department of
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageF
Justice ("DOJ") to create a database containing certain housing
information for registered sex offenders for use by state
agencies conducting investigations relating to sex offenders,
with the following features and requirements:
DOJ would be required to classify the residence
addresses of registered sex offenders using a "unique
identifier."
This "identifier" would have to include a description of
the nature of the dwelling, including, but not limited to,
a single family residence, an apartment, a motel, or a
licensed facility.
Each address classified and its association with any
specific registered sex offender would be required to be
stored in a private searchable database maintained by DOJ.
DOJ would be required to make that information available
to the State Department of Social Services or any other
state agency when the agency needs the information for
investigative responsibilities relative to sex offenders.
3. State Auditor's Report
This bill is based on a report issued a year ago by the
California State Auditor entitled, "Sex Offender Placement:
State Laws Are Not Always Clear, and No One Formally Assesses
the Impact Sex Offender Placement Has on Local Communities."
With respect to the author's targeted concerns about the
proximity of sex offenders to children in licensed facilities,
this report states in part:
We also found 49 instances in which the registered
addresses in Justice's database for sex offenders were
the same as the official addresses of facilities
licensed by Social Services that serve children such
as family day care homes. State law requires that
before issuing a license to operate or manage certain
facilities that serve children, Social Services must
review the criminal history of all applicants seeking
licenses, their employees, and all adults residing at
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageG
these facilities.<3>
The report contains the following recommendation that is the
basis of this bill:
To ensure that registered adult sex offenders are not
residing in licensed facilities that serve children,
Justice should provide Social Services with the
appropriate identifying information to enable Social
Services to investigate those instances in which the
registered addresses of sex offenders were the same as
child care or foster care facilities. If necessary,
Justice and Social Services should seek statutory
changes that would permit Justice to release
identifying information to Social Services so that it
may investigate any matches. . . .<4>
4. The Responses of DOJ and DSS to the Auditor's Report
With respect to the issue of sharing information with DSS, DOJ
responded to the Auditor's Report as follows:
The supplemental report states that the BSA has "found
instances in which the registered addresses in
Justice's database for 49 sex offenders were the same
as the official addresses of facilities licensed by
Social Services that serve children, such as family
day care homes and foster family homes." The initial
report states 45 such instances were identified, but
the BSA has represented that four additional cases
were overlooked in the initial review because of human
error. The BSA has stated that the 49 cases represent
----------------------
<3> Sex Offender Placement: State Laws Are Not Always Clear,
and No One Formally Assesses the Impact Sex Offender Placement
Has on Local Communities (California State Auditor Report
2007-115) ("Report"), pp. 1-2.
<4> Report, p. 27 (emphasis added).
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageH
its final conclusion.<5>
The DOJ has examined its records and confirmed that of
the 49 "matches" identified by the BSA, the DOJ has no
record that 46 were ever the subject of a DSS
pre-licensing inquiry for state or national level
criminal history search. Under California law, a
criminal history search is required as a condition "to
operate or provide direct care services in a community
care facility, foster family home, or a certified
family home of a licensed foster family agency."
(Health & Safety Code, 1522.) The DOJ promptly
performs this search when requested,
(More)
----------------------
<5> In response to this paragraph BSA states: "In completing
our quality control process, we identified four additional sex
offenders whose addresses in Justice's database were the same as
the official addresses of facilities licensed to serve children.
Accordingly, we notified Justice and increased the number from
45 to 49 in our report. We also added language to page 22 of the
report to clarify that the licensed facilities that serve
children are in addition to, and not a subset of the 352
residential facilities."
but the DOJ has no record that a request was ever made
for these 46 cases. As to the remaining three (of the
49), the DOJ has examined each case's specific
circumstances and concluded it provided the necessary
information to the DSS in a timely manner as required
by law.<6>
The DOJ has actively worked with the DSS to satisfy
the report's recommendation that "Justice should
consult with Social Services to investigate those
instances in which the registered addresses of sex
offenders were the same as these facilities." The DOJ
and DSS continue to cooperate with each other to find
a solution to the issue to protect the public and
ensure the safety of every person at risk.<7>
In its response to the audit the Department of Social Services
stated in part:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for
notifying CDSS of the complete criminal record history
information, based on fingerprints submitted for
adults working or residing in a facility seeking a
license. If CDSS finds that the license applicant or
any individual who works or resides in a licensed
facility (other than the residential facility clients
themselves) has been convicted of any crime, other
than a minor traffic violation, the license
----------------------
<6> In response to this paragraph BSA states: "We appreciate
that Justice has performed some research on those sex offenders
we identified as having the same address as a child care
facility. However, Justice did not address our comment that it
further investigate these instances and report to us the results
of its investigation. Accordingly, we have added a
recommendation on page 27 of the report advising Social Services
and Justice to investigate those instances we identified in
which the registered addresses of sex offenders were the same as
the addresses of facilities that serve children."
<7> Letter dated April 15, 2008, attached to BSA report.
(More)
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageJ
application shall be denied, unless the director
grants an exemption. Subsequent criminal conviction
information may also result in a revocation of the
license or exclusion of an individual from the
licensed facility. In addition, upon enrollment of
their children in a licensed child day care facility,
all parents are notified by CDSS in the parents'
rights notification form of the sex offender registry
website and the parents may check the registry if they
are further concerned with the neighborhood they have
selected for their child care.
The draft audit indicates that in reviewing the
addresses of licensed facilities for children, the BSA
discovered 46 resident address matches in a DOJ
database for 49 registered sex offenders. Pursuant to
the definition provided in the audit draft, this would
mean that 46 of the approximately 70,000 licensed
facilities serving children could be compromised.
This type of information is always of significant
concern to the CDSS and requires us to take immediate
action.<8>
In light of the existing authority for the exchange of criminal
record information between DOJ and DSS, members of the Committee
and the author may wish to explore whether the information found
by the audit - specifically, that in 49 cases the addresses for
registered sex offenders matched the addresses for DSS-licensed
child facilities - supports the need for a new database or, in
the alternative, might better be addressed through more rigorous
accountability practices and procedures at DSS.
SHOULD DOJ BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE DATABASE
CONTAINING HOUSING INFORMATION ABOUT REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS,
TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO DSS AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES REQUIRING
INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION RELATING TO SEX OFFENDERS?
WOULD SUCH A DATABASE IMPROVE THE ABILITY OF DSS AND OTHER STATE
---------------------------
<8> Letter dated April 16, 2008, attached to BSA report.
SB 583 (Hollingsworth)
PageK
ENTITIES TO QUICKLY AND ACCURATELY IDENTIFY THE RESIDENCES OF
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS FOR PURPOSES OF ENSURING THE INTEGRITY
OF STATE LICENSING OVERSIGHT?
DOES DOJ'S CURRENT SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY DATABASE INCLUDE THE
CHARACTERISTICS THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE MARKED WITH A "UNIQUE
IDENTIFIER" - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, APARTMENT, MOTEL, OR
LICENSED FACILITY? IF NOT, WOULD THIS BILL REQUIRE DOJ TO
CREATE A DATABASE FROM NEW DATA NOT CURRENTLY COLLECTED BY DOJ?
IF DOJ CURRENTLY CONDUCTS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR DSS
LICENSING PURPOSES, IS THIS BILL NECESSARY?
DO THE FINDINGS OF THE BSA AUDIT DESCRIBED ABOVE SUPPORT THE
NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL DATABASE, AS THIS BILL PROPOSES?
OR, DO THESE FINDINGS SUGGEST THAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE IN
THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES OF DSS IN CONDUCTING CRIMINAL RECORD
CHECKS FOR ITS LICENSEES?
WOULD Improved practices coupled with accountability and
performance auditing to ensure rigorous compliance with existing
criminal record check requirements BE A more practical WAY OF
DEALING WITH THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THIS BILL?
***************