BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
1
1
AB 1111 (Fletcher) 1
As Amended May 3, 2011
Hearing date: July 5, 2011
Penal Code
JM:mc
COLLECTION OF FINES AND FEES FROM HOMELESS YOUTH
HISTORY
Source: Children's Advocacy Institute
Prior Legislation: AB 2264 (De León) - 2010, vetoed
Support: California Coalition for Youth; Advancement Project;
Housing California; Western Center on Law and Poverty;
California State PTA; California Public Defenders
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD COURTS BE PROHIBITED FROM garnishing the wages or levying
against bank accounts of a person under 25 years of age who has not
paid a ticket for truancy, loitering, curfew violations or illegal
lodging where, in the course of its routine efforts to collect
fines, the court obtains information that THE person is homeless?
AB 1111 (Fletcher)
PageB
(More)
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are to 1) provide that where the
court, in the course of routine efforts to collect fines,
obtains information that a person under the age of 25 who has
not paid a citation for truancy, loitering, curfew violations or
illegal lodging is homeless, the court shall not garnish the
person's wages or levy against his or her bank accounts; and 2)
allow garnishment and bank account levies to go forward when the
person reaches the age of 25 or is no longer homeless.
Existing law states that it is state policy to facilitate
development and operation of housing for homeless youth and that
development of such housing shall not be considered unlawful age
discrimination. (Gov. Code § 11139.3, subds. (a)-(b).)
Existing law defines a "homeless youth" as either of the
following:
a person who is at least 18 years of age, but not
older than 24 years of age, and meets one of the
following conditions:
o is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless;
o is no longer eligible for foster care on the
basis of age; or,
o has run away from home.
a person who is less than 18 years of age who is
emancipated and who is homeless or at risk of becoming
homeless. (Gov. Code § 11139.3, subd. (e)(2).)
Existing law defines a "homeless person" as any person who lacks
a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or who has a
primary nighttime residence in a shelter, a temporary living
institution, or a public or private place not designated for
regular sleeping accommodations for humans. (Health & Saf. Code
(More)
AB 1111 (Fletcher)
PageC
§ 50582.)
This bill provides that a court shall not garnish the wages or
levy against bank accounts of a homeless person who is under 25
years of age under the following circumstances:
the young person has an unpaid fee, fine, forfeiture
or penalty for a citation for truancy, loitering,
violation of curfew or illegal lodging;
the court obtained information indicating that the
person was homelessness during the court's routine
process of collecting fees, fines and penalties.
This bill provides that the prohibition on wage garnishment or
bank account levies shall expire when the homeless person
reaches the age of 25 or is no longer homeless.
This bill provides that a person is "homeless" or has "no
permanent address" if he or she has no fixed, regular, adequate
nighttime residence, or if he or she has a primary nighttime
residence that is one of the following:
A supervised public or private shelter designed to
provide temporary accommodations.
An institution that provides temporary residence for
persons intended to be institutionalized.
A public or private place that is not designed or
ordinarily used for a regular sleeping accommodation
(More)
AB 1111 (Fletcher)
PageD
for human beings, including, but not limited to, a park
or other public space, an abandoned building, an
automobile or other vehicle, or a bus or train station.
This bill provides that it shall not be construed to prevent the
Judicial Council from altering any recommendations or defining
best practices for collection programs, as specified.
This bill contains legislative findings concerning the incidence
of homeless youth, the garnishment of their wages and savings,
and the effect of these debt collection practices on the ability
of homeless youth to improve their life circumstances, as
specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). 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 January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
(More)
AB 1111 (Fletcher)
PageE
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The California Research Bureau report, Voices from the
Street: A Survey of Homeless Youth by Their Peers
(March 2008), reveals that the vast majority of
homeless youth are not voluntarily homeless. They are
forced out by parents, flee from physical or sexual
abuse, escape parental drug and alcohol abuse, or are
former foster youth emancipated directly to the
streets. Research indicates that approximately
200,000 youth under the age of 18, and thousands of
18-24 year olds, are likely homeless at least part of
each year.
Homeless youth are among the most vulnerable members
of our community. They are frequently ticketed for
loitering, truancy, and curfew violations. When they
cannot pay fines and miss court appearances, they
receive additional fines and may be jailed.
Eventually, courts institute wage garnishment for
(More)
AB 1111 (Fletcher)
PageF
citations related to homelessness, just as for parking
citations and other violations.
Wage garnishment is an appropriate way for the state
to recover monetary penalties. However, where a
homeless youth finds employment and can get off of the
streets, wage garnishment is highly counterproductive.
A garnishment notice to an employer embarrasses the
newly employed youth and puts his or her job at risk.
Garnishment is an unnecessary barrier to financial
independence, damages the young person's credit and is
a substantial disincentive for employment.
AB 1111, jointly authored by Assembly Members Fletcher
and Mitchell, provides that wage garnishment for
offenses associated with homelessness - truancy,
loitering, illegal lodging, and curfew violations -
shall be delayed until a homeless person reaches the
age of 25. AB 1111 allows citations to be levied and
penalties to accrue. The moment the individual turns
25 or is no longer homeless, wage garnishment may
continue.
Wage garnishment against homeless youth is also not
cost effective for the state. The likelihood of
successful collection is very low, and the fines are
too small to justify the expense of collection. This
has been confirmed by the Judicial Council, who along
with relevant debt collection agencies, do not oppose
this bill.
2. Background: Homelessness and the Criminal Justice System
(More)
According to a 2006 report by the National Coalition for the
Homeless, the past 25 years has seen increasing criminal justice
to response to homelessness. (National Coalition for the
Homeless and National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, A
Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S.
Cities, Washington, DC: National Coalition and National Law
Center (Jan. 2006) p. 8.) Many jurisdictions prohibit
activities that homeless people need to survive - sleeping,
camping, eating, sitting, and begging in public spaces. (Ibid.)
In the four years between 2002 and 2006, in the 67 cities
surveyed, the report found there was a 12% increase in laws
prohibiting begging in particular places, an 18% increase in
laws prohibiting "aggressive panhandling," and a 14% increase in
laws prohibiting sitting or lying in particular public spaces.
(Ibid.) Jailing a homeless person for violating one of these
laws costs two to three times as much as providing supportive
housing. (Lewin Group, The Partnership to End Long-Term
Homelessness, Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine
Cities: Chart Book (Nov. 19 2004) p. 11.) Warrants for failure
to pay fines can impede a homeless person from obtaining a
driver's license, getting a job and securing housing. (Bring
L.A. Home Blue Ribbon Panel, Bring L.A. Home (Feb. 5, 2004) p.
35.)
3. 2008 Report by the California Research Bureau on the
Experience of Homeless Young Californians Caught in the
Criminal Justice System
In a 2008 report,<1> the California Research Bureau compiled
interviews with California youth from ages 13 to 25 in 23
cities. The report found that many homeless youth were
prosecuted for "quality of life" offenses that impeded them from
leaving the streets. Excerpts from the interviews demonstrate
the problem, perhaps better than dozens of formal reports:
----------------------
<1> Bernstein & Foster, California Research Bureau, Voices From
the Street (2008)