BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
7
3
3
SB 733 (Leno)
As Amended April 23, 2009
Hearing date: April 28, 2009
Government Code
JM:mc
VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME:
TRAUMA RECOVERY CENTERS
HISTORY
Source: Crime Victims United
Prior Legislation: AB 1669 (Leno) - 2007, vetoed
AB 50 (Leno) - Ch. 884, Stats. 2006
AB 1768 (Committee on Public Safety) - 2005, vetoed
Support: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office;
California Catholic Conference; Taxpayers for Improving
Public Safety
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE CALIFORNIA VICTIMS COMPENSATION AND GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
BOARD (CVCGCB) EVALUATE APPLICATIONS AND AWARD GRANTS FOR UP TO
TWO YEARS FOR TRAUMA RECOVERY CENTERS ("TRCs") THAT PROVIDE THE
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageB
FOLLOWING SERVICES TO AND RESOURCES FOR CRIME VICTIMS: MENTAL
HEALTH, COORDINATION OF CARE, COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND SERVICES
TO FAMILIES OF HOMICIDE VICTIMS?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD TOTAL TRC GRANTS NOT EXCEED $5.1 MILLION, WITH A MAXIMUM OF
$1.7 MILLION PER CENTER?
SHOULD GRANTS BE MADE ONLY TO CENTERS THAT 1) PROVIDE TRAINING TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES, COMMUNITY AGENCIES AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS ON THE IDENTIFICATION AND EFFECTS OF VIOLENT CRIME; AND 2)
MEET ANY OTHER RELATED CRITERIA REQUIRED BY THE BOARD?
SHOULD PRIORITY BE GIVEN TO CENTERS THAT REACH UNDERSERVED
POPULATIONS AND TREAT A FULL RANGE OF VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME?
SHOULD CODIFIED LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE
IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING TREATMENT AND SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF CRIME
BE ENACTED, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) authorize the California
Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (CVCGCB) to
evaluate applications and award grants totaling up to $5.1
million - up to $1.7 million per center - to multi-disciplinary
trauma recovery centers (TRC) that provide the following
services to and resources for crime victims: a) mental health;
b) community outreach; and c) coordination among medical
personnel, mental health care providers, law enforcement and
social services; and 2) make codified legislative declarations
and findings regarding the importance of providing treatment and
services to victims of crime, as specified.
Existing law creates the Victims of Crime Program, administered
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageC
by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims
Board ("CVCGCB"), to reimburse victims of crime for the
pecuniary losses they suffer as a direct result of criminal
acts. Indemnification is made from the Restitution Fund, which
is continuously appropriated to the board for these purposes.
(Gov. Code 13950-13968.)
Existing law authorizes reimbursement to a victim for "[t]he
medical or medical related expenses incurred by the victim?."
(Gov. Code 13957, subd. (a)(1).)
Existing law provides that the total award to or on behalf of
each victim or derivative victim may not exceed $35,000, except
that this amount may be increased to $70,000 if federal funds
for that increase are available. (Gov. Code 13957, subd.
(b).)
Existing law provides that CVCGB shall enter into an interagency
agreement with the UCSF to establish a recovery center for
victims of crime at the San Francisco General Hospital for
comprehensive and integrated services to victims of crime,
subject to conditions set by the board. The University Regents
must approve the agreement. The section shall only be
implemented to the extent that funding is appropriated for that
purpose. (Gov. Code 13974.5.)
This bill would authorize CVCGCB to administer a program to
evaluate applications and award grants to trauma recovery
centers ("TRCs"). TRCs under this program would be required to
provide the following services to and resources for crime
victims:
use of a multidisciplinary staff of clinicians;
mental health services;
case management;
assertive community outreach;
coordination of care among medical and mental health
care providers, law enforcement and social services; and
services to families and loved ones of homicide victims.
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageD
This bill provides that CVCGCB may award grants totaling up to
$5.1 million, with a maximum of $1.7 million per center.
This bill provides that CVCGCB shall only award grants to
centers that meet the following criteria:
The center must be a community resource by training law
enforcement, community based agencies and health care
providers on the identification of and effects of crime.
The center must meet any other related criteria required
by the board.
This bill provides that each center that receives a grant shall
do the following:
Report to the board on how funds were spent, the number
of clients served, units of service, staff productivity,
outcomes, and patient flow.
Assist the board with data and forms for federal
reimbursement for services provided by the center.
This bill would codify legislative declarations and findings
concerning the importance of treatment and services for victims
of crime, as specified.
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% (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
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageE
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.
. . . 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
----------------------
<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 733 (Leno)
PageF
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.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
---------------------------
<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 733 (Leno)
PageG
SB 733 establishes a grant program to be administered
by the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
(VCGCB) which will provide for the creation and
funding of up to 3 Trauma Recovery Centers (TRCs)
across the state. Modeled after the award-winning and
nationally recognized TRC at San Francisco General
Hospital, these centers will offer rapid, integrated
health treatment to victims of violent crime right
when they need it the most, immediately after a
horrible trauma.
As with any serious health issue -- cancer, stroke --
early treatment is critical for a good outcome.
Unfortunately, a recent State Auditor report confirms
that the state's victim services system fails to meet
this and other critical needs of victims. Victims do
not receive rapid intervention. Instead, they must 1)
find out on their own that the State offers
compensation for certain health and support services
and then obtain those services, 2) navigate a process
that requires them to produce as many as twelve
verifying documents such as police reports and tax
returns, and then 3) wait months to find out whether
their application has been accepted.
Our Broken System - Examples from the Audit of the
Compensation Program:
Over a four year period the VCGCB decreased the
amount of payments distributed to victims by 50%,
from $123.9 million to $61.6 million.
Despite a significant decline in payments,
program costs increased - LAO estimates that
administrative spending accounted for $39 million,
or about 31% of annual funding for 2006-07.
1 in 3 victims failed to receive their claim
payments within 30 days. Nearly 30% of claims
examined by the Auditor were not processed within 90
days.
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageH
Many victims are unaware of the existence of
services due to the difficulties of community
outreach (Report of the Cal. State Auditor,
December, 2008)
What Is The TRC Model? The TRC treatment model was
developed in 2001 to address the multiple barriers to
access within the state's current victim service
system. The model involves a comprehensive, flexible
approach that integrates three modes of service -
assertive outreach, clinical case management, and
evidence-informed trauma-focused therapies. This
model is designed to meet the special needs of crime
victims immediately following their trauma by
utilizing a multidisciplinary staff to provide direct
mental health services and health treatment while
coordinating services with law enforcement and other
social service agencies in one location.
Improved Victim Outcomes under the TRC Model (Results
from UCSF/General Hospital):
Increased return to employment by 56%.
Increased participation with law enforcement by
69%.
Increased cooperation with District Attorneys
by 44%.
Provided more victim services at a lower rate -
$66.81 per unit of service for the TRC as compared
to $101.84 for VCGCB providers.
Solution: There are many more victims of crime in
California eligible for compensation than actually
seek it. SB 733 takes an important step toward
ensuring that more victims receive comprehensive,
expert treatment as soon as possible. SB 733
establishes a grant program which will allow the TRC
model of streamlined, clinically cost effective, rapid
intervention to develop in partnership with the
current model of document review and reimbursement.
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageI
2. Condition of the Victims Compensation Fund; Funding for TRCs
Concerns have been raised about whether trauma recovery centers
should be funded by the Victims Compensation Fund. As noted in
the author's statement and in the text of the bill, many if not
most of the services provided by a TRC are eligible for
reimbursement from the Victim Compensation Program. Further,
the TRC model arguably provides particularly cost-effective and
efficient services. The UCSF TRC model would appear likely to
be replicated without undue strain on the Victim Compensation
Fund.
A summary (expressed in millions of dollars) of the condition of
the fund - from the 2007-2008 board report follows:
Beginning Fund Balance 136.2
Revenue
Restitution Fines and Fees 63.1
Penalty Assessments 54.0
Restitution Orders 7.0
Civil or Criminal Violations 1.9
Liens on Civil Suits 1.2
Federal VOCA Grant 32.1
Miscellaneous Revenue 1.2
Subtotal FY 2007-08 Revenue 160.5
Total Reserves and FY 2007-08 Revenue 296.7
Expenditures
Adjusted Claims Payments 82.1
Program Costs
Salaries and Benefits 21.7
Joint Powers Contracts 11.1
Criminal Restitution Compact Contracts 2.9
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageJ
Interagency and Other Contracts 1.8
Facilities Operations & Pro Rata 3.8
Data Center and Processing 4.0
Operating Expenses 1.5
Total Program Costs 46.8
Special Appropriations
Department of Justice 6.7
Office of Emergency Services 10.2
Ten Percent Rebate Program 5.7
State Controllers Office .03
County Special Elections Costs 2.6
Total Special Appropriations 25.2
Total Expenditures 154.1
Ending Fund Balance 142.6
2008-2009 Transfer to General Fund - 80
3. Comprehensive Community Response to Crime
This bill proposes a model for delivering comprehensive
treatment of and services to victims. However, it may
underscore something deeper about the nature and effects of
crime. Crime is essentially a wrong against society, while
civil tort law concerns wrongs against individuals and remedies
for such wrongs. (People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 316.)
The concept of crime as a wrong against society is inherent in
the title of every criminal case - People of the State of
California v. the Offender.
The criminal justice system is mainly concerned with punishing
persons who commit crimes. The Penal Code states that
punishment is the purpose for imprisonment. (Pen. Code 1170,
subd. (a).) The Legislature has recently begun debating how the
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageK
state can reduce recidivism. The legislative debate mirrors
debate in academic circles. (See, Historical Background: The
What Works Debate, New Zealand Corrections Dept., October 2008.)
While legislatures and academics have argued about what works
to reduce crime, prison populations have grown, although social
ills such as drug abuse and gangs increased as well. Recently,
criminologists have proposed a reexamination of how we approach
crime. This research raises very basic issues about how we
should respond to crime and deal with the harm caused by crime.
(Punishment and Modern Society, Garland, Univ. of Chicago Press
(1993).)
The concerns of victims have become increasingly recognized over
the past decades. Penalties in a determinate sentencing system
like California's have been informed greatly by victim
advocates. In addition, victim compensation has developed as an
important response to crime which is rooted in a growing
awareness of the impact of crime on victims.
The TRC model addresses what may be lacking in California's
current approach to victims - healing the harm that comes to
communities through the commission of crime. (The Culture of
Control, Garland, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2001, pp. 11-12).)
Arguably, the TRC program demonstrates that harm to the specific
victim of a crime spreads through the community. This is
especially true in relatively poor and marginal communities
where residents have limited access to, and perhaps some
discomfort with, medical care and counseling.
A victim who loses a job because he or she is too traumatized to
work may be the sole support for more than one generation of
relatives. Younger relatives of such victims may stop attending
school and become delinquent. Untreated victims may seek
retribution, especially those who live in areas where the police
are not trusted. Retribution will lead to more victims.
Untreated victims often turn to drugs and alcohol, which further
damages the victim and his or her community.
Recent research has established that unhealthy communities breed
crime. Gang research has established that gang crimes can best,
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageL
or perhaps only, be stopped where the whole community becomes
involved. Increased suppression of gangs through police action,
when not combined with comprehensive changes in the community -
actually increases gang membership and crime. (Klein and
Maxson, Street Gang Patterns and Policies, Oxford Univ. Press,
2006.) The broken windows strategy in New York City was based
on a theory that communities that are dysfunctional in everyday
things will produce greater ills. Recent Dutch research has
shown that the presence of graffiti and trash in a neighborhood
promotes crime. (Graffiti Study Bolsters Broken Window Theory,
LA Times, November 21, 2008.) This research suggests that
treating victims of crime within a community context may do much
more to heal communities and reduce crime than any programs or
strategies that focus on offenders.
DOES VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST INDIVIDUALS HARM THE COMMUNITIES IN
WHICH VICTIMS LIVE AND WORK?
DO TRAUMA RECOVERY CENTER PROGRAMS LIMIT HARM TO COMMUNITIES
FROM CRIME?
COULD EXPANSION OF TRAUMA RECOVERY PROGRAMS EVENTUALLY REDUCE
CRIME AND SOCIETAL ILLS SUCH AS DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE?
4. Discussions with Community Organizations; Proposals for
Community-Based TRC Advisory Boards
The author has been in discussions with numerous parties who are
involved in community services for crime victims.
Community-based service providers - typically private
organizations that depend on or use volunteers - often offer
services such as peer counseling.
The author intends to add a provision for an advisory board for
each TRC. Advisory boards would help to prevent duplication or
elimination of community services by the TRC. An advisory board
also could help a TRC devise effective treatment programs.
These boards could also be an invaluable resource for victims
who finish acute treatment through the TRC. Even patients who
achieve positive treatment outcomes through the TRC will often
(More)
SB 733 (Leno)
PageM
need more limited services in the future.
SHOULD THE BILL INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY BOARDS TO
ADVISE A TRC ON HOW TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS
AND TO COORDINATE VARIOUS COMMUNITY RESOURCES?
***************
(More)