BILL ANALYSIS SB 733 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair SB 733 (Leno) - As Amended: January 26, 2010 Policy Committee: Public SafetyVote:7-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill requires the California Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCGCB or board) to administer a grant program for trauma recovery centers (TRCs), and authorize the board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award grants totaling up to $3 million from the Restitution Fund to TRCs that provide services to crime victims. Specifically this bill: 1)Authorizes the board to provide funding for up to three years; the board may award consecutive grants to a TRC to "prevent a lapse in funding." 2)Defines a TRC as a center with a multidisciplinary staff of clinicians who provide mental health services, community-based outreach and clinical case management, and coordination of care between providers, social service agencies, and law enforcement. 3)Requires a TRC to demonstrate, for purposes of grant eligibility, that it serves as a community resource by providing services such as presentations and training to law enforcement, community-based organizations, and other health care providers regarding the identification and effects of violent crime. 4)Requires the board to give grant preference to: a) TRCs that conduct outreach to, and serve crime victims "who are typically unable to access traditional services," including the homeless, chronically mentally ill, disabled, and immigrant populations. SB 733 Page 2 b) TRCs that serve victims of a wide range of violent crimes. FISCAL EFFECT Costs to the Restitution Fund of up to $3 million, contingent upon a subsequent appropriation. The $148 million Restitution Fund, supported by penalty assessments, is currently flirting with insolvency in 2010-11, with a projected reserve of about 4% at best ($6 million), and will be insolvent by the close of 2011-12, with a deficit in the range of $20 million. The board notes they receive a 60% federal match on all payments the board makes to crime victims. While this bill requires TCAs to provide any information required by the board to qualify the proposed grant funds for a federal match, the board notes that of the $1.3 million provided to the UCSF TRC in 2006-07, only about $100,000 qualified for a federal match due to specifications regarding victim eligibility and allowable expenses. (The author takes issue with the board's estimate regarding federal fund eligibility and suggests a more thorough effort by the board could greatly increase matching funds for TRCs.) COMMENTS 1)Rationale. The author contends the TCA model is a cost-effective means to provide services to crime victims unable to navigate VCGCB processes, which the author suggests are Byzantine and cost-inefficient. The author cites the success of the UCSF TRC in providing services to crime victims who are often unable to access traditional services, including the homeless, the chronically mentally ill, and others with complex psychosocial problems. According to the author, "At any given time, crime statistics suggest that there are many more victims of crime in California eligible for services from the CVCGCB than actually seek it out. Disadvantaged crime victims have an especially difficult time gaining access to the system. A bureaucratic maze of paperwork effectively denies them assistance and represents an inherent bias in the current system of care. Victims are required to produce as many as 10 supporting SB 733 Page 3 documents to establish eligibility before beginning a waiting period - lasting up to three months or more - to find out whether their application for compensation has been accepted. The goal of the state's victim services, and the obligation of the state, is to serve victims, all victims, not just those savvy enough to navigate the system. "SB 733 offers victims an alternative by providing for the establishment of a grant program within the CVCGCB which would provide TRCs with the funding they need to offer expert medical treatment directly to victims of crime. "The grant program will be administered by the CVCGCB and would fund programs that replicate the victim service model developed at the San Francisco TRC (San Francisco General Hospital/UCSF) which utilizes a multidisciplinary staff to provide direct mental health services and treatment to victims while coordinating services with law enforcement and other social service agencies all under one roof. This victim service model has received national recognition for its ability to cost effectively meet the special needs of crime victims immediately following their trauma. "Unlike California's Victim Compensation Program (VCP), the TRC model allows for aggressive outreach to vulnerable populations - those individuals that are most susceptible to becoming victims of crime and also the least likely to benefit from VCP services." 2)2008 Bureau of State Audits (BSA) Report Criticizes VCGCB processes . The author references the BSA report in support of his contention that there is room - and need - for a better service model. BSA criticisms levied at the board include: a) From 2001-02 through 2004-05, VCP compensation payments decreased from $124 million to $62 million. b) Despite the significant decline in payments, administrative costs make up a significant portion of the SB 733 Page 4 Restitution Fund disbursements-ranging from 26% to 42% annually. c) The program did not always process applications and bills efficiently. d) The program's numerous problems with the transition to a new application and bill processing system led to an increase in complaints regarding processing delays. The BSA made a series of recommendations, including the following: a) To improve processing time for making decisions on applications and paying bills, the board should identify the problems leading to delays and resolve them. It should develop specific procedures to use when following up with verifying entities, and it should continue efforts to communicate to verifying entities the importance of responding promptly to requests for information. b) To ensure the board carries out its outreach efforts, it should develop a comprehensive plan to prioritize its efforts, and consider demographic and crime statistics information when planning outreach strategies. 1)Supporters , including the L.A. D.A., the CA Emergency Nurses Association, and San Francisco, support the need for outreach and additional funding for victims services. 2)Opponents , including the VCGCB and the CA Coalition Against Sexual Assault, contend it is crucial to deal with the long-term stability of the Restitution Fund before funding additional models. According to the Coalition, "This fund is essential to victims throughout the state and at this time we must join with others in opposing this legislation until the Restitution Fund is restored to a stable balance." 3)VCGCB's Victim Compensation Program provides compensation to injured crime victims. Family members or other persons may also be eligible for compensation. The program is the payer of last resort and covers a range of services, including medical and mental health services, when the costs are not covered by SB 733 Page 5 other sources, such as insurance. Depending on circumstances, payment can be made either directly to an individual or to a service provider. 4)Related Legislation. a) AB 1669 (Leno, 2007), similar to AB 733, was vetoed. The governor stated "In my signing message for AB 50 in 2006, I stated that the use of Restitution Funds for the San Francisco Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) should be considered a one-time appropriation. This appropriation was granted in order to provide time to identify alternate sources of funding for the TRC and other similar programs. The use of the Restitution Fund to replicate and fund programs of this type presents a significant concern to its ongoing ability to support the compensation of crime victims for which it was established. "While the model of service supported by this bill has proven effective at the TRC, the Restitution Fund is an inappropriate ongoing source of funding for this type of program. The Restitution Fund is the funding source of the Victim Compensation Program, which was designated to pay for certain out-of-pocket expenses to specific victims of crime. In contrast, the trauma centers that would be supported by this bill provide comprehensive services, which exceed out-of-pocket expenses, to individuals that are not restricted to victims of crime." b) AB 50 (Leno), Chapter 884, Statutes of 2006, appropriated $1.3 million for the TRC at the San Francisco General Hospital. Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081