BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
SB 557 (Kehoe)
As Amended May 2, 2011
Hearing Date: May 10, 2011
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
EDO
SUBJECT
Family Justice Centers
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize local governments to establish family
justice centers (FJC) and allow for the FJCs to be staffed by,
among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and
child welfare personnel. This bill would also authorize the FJC
to share information between the partner agencies after
obtaining informed consent from the victims seeking services.
BACKGROUND
The Family Justice Center (FJC) model was originally developed
in San Diego, which opened a center in 2002. The idea behind
the FJC model is to create a coordinated, single-point-of-access
center offering comprehensive services for victims of domestic
violence, thereby reducing the number of locations a victim must
visit in order to receive critical services. The United States
Department of Justice, through its Office on Violence Against
Women (OVW), has identified the Family Justice Center model as a
best practice in the field of domestic violence. According to
the OVW, documented and public FJC outcomes include a reduction
in the rate of homicide; increased victim safety; improved
offender prosecution; reduced fear and anxiety for victims and
their children; increased efficiency among service providers
through the provision of collaborative victims; and increased
community support for the provision of services and their
children. (Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting
Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across America,
Volcano Press, 2006.) There are currently fifteen family
(more)
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 2 of ?
justice centers in California and over seventy centers in the
United States.
This bill would define in law the family justice center (FJC)
model and authorize local governments to create a FJC in their
communities, as well as require each FJC to maintain an informed
consent policy to authorize the sharing of information among the
agencies working within the FJC.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Constitution, declares that the
right to privacy is an inalienable right. (Cal. Const., art. I,
sec. 1.)
Existing federal law , the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requires that medical
information be kept confidential unless authorized by the
patient. Existing law allows for disclosure to law enforcement
personnel for specified purposes. (Pub. Law 104-191; 45 CFR
160, 164.)
Existing law provides that a victim of domestic violence has a
privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from
disclosing, a confidential communication between the victim and
a domestic violence counselor. (Evid. Code Sec. 1037.5.)
Existing law provides for the establishment of community-based
domestic violence victim shelters and services. (Welf. & Inst.
Code Secs. 18290-18309.5.)
Existing law provides for the California Emergency Management
Agency (CalEMA) to provide grants to proposed and existing child
sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse victim counseling
centers and prevention programs, including programs for minor
victims of human trafficking. (Pen. Code Sec. 13837.)
Existing law provides that child protective services agencies,
law enforcement, prosecution, child abuse and domestic violence
experts, and community-based organizations serving abused
children and victims of domestic violence shall develop, in
collaboration with one another, protocols as to how law
enforcement and child welfare agencies will cooperate in their
response to incidents of domestic violence in homes in which a
child resides. (Pen. Code Sec. 13732.)
This bill would define the Family Justice Center (FJC) model in
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 3 of ?
the law and expand the reach for whom services will be provided
to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also
victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault,
elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human
trafficking. This bill would also allow for the FJCs to be
staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social
service, and child welfare personnel.
This bill would also provide that victims of crime will not be
denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.
This bill would require each FJC to develop policies and
procedures to enhance the safety of the victims and
professionals at the FJC. This bill would require each FJC to
maintain an informed consent policy for the purpose of sharing
confidential and privileged information among the partner
agencies in the FJC. This bill would require that at no time
will a victim be required to sign the informed consent policy
and that the informed consent policy must be in compliance with
all other state and federal laws.
This bill would provide that the victim's consent to share
information is not a waiver of confidentiality or privilege held
by the victim.
This bill would require all FJC professionals to be formally
trained in victim confidentiality and information sharing.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
SB 557 would define Family Justice Centers in state law and
thereby recognize the growing trend toward innovative,
multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for
victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking.
In addition, this bill clarifies that the current protections
of victim's confidentiality continue even if a
multi-disciplinary team is working with the victim to enhance
safety and support that there is no universal waiver of
confidentiality in relation to third parties not involved in
the safety services being provided.
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 4 of ?
Family Justice Centers are a growing trend of providing
domestic violence, elder abuse and sexual assault services but
there are no standards set for what a family justice center
should offer, no uniformity, Ýand] no standards on
confidentiality. . .
2. This bill raises concerns regarding the sharing of victim
information
The doctrine of informed consent originated in the medical
community and was meant to reconcile a person's inherent right
to decide what happened to his or her body and the doctor's duty
to provide the patient with enough information to make that
determination. As applied to this bill, informed consent would
mean the right of the victim seeking services to share
personally identifying information with the partner agencies and
the duty of the FJC to provide enough information for the victim
to determine whether or not he or she wants to share that
information. This bill would also require each FJC to maintain
a formal and mandatory training program for all staff members
that includes confidentiality and information sharing.
According to the sponsor, "the heart of an FJC is sharing
critical information authorized to be shared by the victim . . .
The primary information shared in FJC's is demographic
information so the victim does not have to give her basic
information over and over to 25 partner agencies. She also gets
to choose who gets to see her demographic information among the
agencies in a Center. The intake process includes risk
assessment and safety planning . . . Later, after the intake
process is completed, she gets to choose what incident-based
information she wants to share and who she wants to share it
with. At times, the sharing of information is critical to
keeping her alive in high risk cases. The 'informed' part of
the consent process is about advising the victim on the impacts
and ramifications of sharing information." In response to staff
inquiries regarding the use of the information shared and the
potential for the information to be used against the victim, the
sponsor responded "we are not aware of any examples of victims
being prosecuted in Centers in California after coming forward
for help and disclosing certain information, but it is an issue
that we have to be aware of and sensitive to especially with
mandated reporters in Centers."
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 5 of ?
(Partnership) is opposed to this bill and raises concerns with
the sharing of confidential and privileged information among the
partner agencies. While the goal is to help the victims receive
the services necessary, there is always concern when domestic
violence victims share their names and addresses. Special
programs have been created in the law to protect the identity
and addresses of victims of domestic violence. SB 1491 (Kuehl,
Chapter 54, Statutes of 2006) prohibited any entity that awards
grants to victim service providers from requesting or requiring,
the personally identifying information of victims of domestic
violence, and other specified groups as a condition of the
award. SB 1491 also prohibited the use of computer programs or
systems that require the disclosure of that personally
identifying information. The author of SB 1491 argued at the
time "that studies show individuals can often be located through
the release of limited information, including gender and place
and date of birth." And a supporter of SB 1491, Calegislation,
added "that even including victims' personal information in a
database can place victims at a heightened risk of
re-victimization because the database may be subject to computer
hacking or a record breach."
The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (PRC) and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) also oppose this bill and raise concerns
regarding the sharing of confidential information. PRC writes
"we are concerned with the sharing of victims' 'confidential,
privileged, or protected' information among the various social
services, law enforcement, or nonprofit organizations in a
'family justice center' with the implementation of an 'informed
client consent policy.' Such broad sharing of information could
serve as a 'chilling effect' for individuals seeking such vital
services. It should be possible to offer these services without
widely sharing this sensitive and highly protected information."
(See Comment 3 for suggested amendments to address these
concerns.)
3. This bill raises concerns regarding defining the Family
Justice Center (FJC) model in the law
Currently, there are fifteen FJCs in California. There are also
over 100 domestic violence shelters in California and another
100 community-based organizations in California that provide
similar services as the shelters. This bill would authorize
local governments to establish a multi-agency,
multi-disciplinary family justice center to assist victims of
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 6 of ?
domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual
assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyberbullying,
and human trafficking. The stated purpose of the FJC is to
allow victims to be able to access all of the needed services in
one location.
The sponsor of this bill, the National Family Justice Center
Alliance, notes that "the California Legislature has recognized
Child Advocacy Centers, Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams,
and other forms of multi-disciplinary intervention in family
violence but has never recognized Family Justice Centers." The
sponsor argues that the purpose of the FJC is to bring all of
the services for these vulnerable victims under one roof. The
sponsor contends that "victims are often required to travel from
location to location to seek services that are scattered through
a community or region. They have to tell their story over and
over again to staff members representing agencies, such as, law
enforcement, courts, civil legal, medical, transportation,
housing, social services, mental health, rehabilitation,
financial assistance, and many more. The criminal justice
system unintentionally makes it easy for victims to become
frustrated and ultimately stop seeking help. Faced with so many
obstacles, victims often return to their abuser rather than
obtaining the necessary services."
In opposition to the bill, the Partnership to End Domestic
Violence (Partnership) has several concerns about authorizing
local governments to establish the FJC model. The Partnership
argues that:
California should be consistent with Federal statute and not
promote, define or authorize the establishment of a Family
Justice Center model over other models as SB 557 would do if
passed. Although SB 557 is intended to promote victim safety
and batterer accountability by defining Family Justice Centers
in state statute, the Partnership strongly believes that the
decision to establish Family Justice Centers, or any other
type of multi-agency service-delivery program, should reside
at the local level. Because a majority of Family Justice
Centers are primarily led by members of the criminal justice
systems, it is crucial that cities and counties continue to
seek input and consultation for community-based victim
services providers, including representatives from domestic
violence crisis and advocacy centers. We have heard from
local advocates that, 'One size does not fit all.' For
example, rather than a one-stop shop, San Francisco has opted
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 7 of ?
not to establish an FJC, based on local DV program input and
desire to coordinate services and work to build mutually
respectful relationships with the Criminal Legal System, but
keep their services separate and equal.
The Partnership has also expressed concerns regarding the
availability of funding. The partnership states that:
In communities where FJCs have been created, local providers
of domestic violence services and shelters are reporting
having to compete with FJCs for available funds. While this
bill does not seek funding for FJCs, service providers know
that there will be future attempts at tapping into already
thin funding available for services to crime victims which
could divert funding from local non-profits to cities and
counties. The passage of SB 557 would appear to be a state
endorsement of a Family Justice Center Model, which will lead
to future collaborations that are more innovative or locally
relevant to lose out because they are not in state statute.
While we have seen some successful Family Justice Centers,
there are many that have problematic practices, such as
background checks and arrest of victims with warrants, and
violation of victims' rights to confidentiality and privilege.
Furthermore, as a statewide coalition representing many
groups, including multidisciplinary, multiservice agencies, it
is a direct conflict of interest for the Partnership to
promote one service model over another.
In response to these concerns and the concerns discussed above
relating to the sharing of confidential information, the
committee should consider limiting the bill to a two-year pilot
project in selected cities and counties in order to study and
address the concerns that have been raised. In order to help
address the significant privacy concerns raised by this bill,
the committee should also consider involving the California
Office of Privacy Protection to ensure that the informed consent
process being used by the currently operating FJCs for
confidential victim information sharing is providing sufficient
protection for victims' privacy and safety.
Suggested amendments:
1. On page 2, line 6, insert "13750. (a) The City of San
Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the
County of Sonoma shall be authorized to create a two-year
pilot project for the establishment of a Family Justice
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 8 of ?
Center in accordance with the provisions of this Section
and Section 13751."
2. On page 2, line 6, strike out "A city, county, or city
and county" and insert "The City of San Diego, the City of
Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma"
3. On page 3, line 4, strike out "a city, county, or city
and county" and insert "the City of San Diego, the City of
Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma"
4. On page 6, line 8, strike out "in order to authorize the
sharing of confidential, " and lines 9 through 13 inclusive
and on line 14 strike out "affiliated with the family
justice center. However"
5. On page 6, line 8 after "policy" insert "and shall be in
compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the
confidentiality of the types of information and documents
that may be in a victim's file, including, but not limited
to, medical and legal records."
6. On page 6, line 14 strike out "at" and insert "At".
7. On page 6, line 16, strike out "The informed consent"
and lines 17 through 20 inclusive.
8. On page 6, line 25, insert "(j) The Office of Privacy
Protection in conjunction with the four pilot Centers, the
National Family Justice Center Alliance, and relevant
stakeholders shall develop best practices to ensure the
privacy of all Family Justice Center clients and shall
submit a report to the Assembly and Senate Committees on
Judiciary, no later than January 1, 2013, with
recommendations."
9. On page 6, after the previous above paragraph insert
"(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January
1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later
enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014,
deletes or extends that date."
10. On page 6, line 32, insert, "(k) This section shall
remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that
date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is
enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 9 of ?
date."
Support : City Attorney of San Diego; Community Service Programs
Victim Assistance Programs; Family Justice Center Sonoma County;
Family Justice Center Legal Network; Fresno Police Department
Domestic Violence Unit; Office of the District Attorney County
of Shasta; Office of the District Attorney of Stanislaus County;
San Diego District Attorney; San Diego Police Department; Shasta
Family Justice Center; Stanislaus Family Justice Center
Opposition : ACLU (unless amended); Asian Women Speak-Asian and
Pacific Islander Advocates against Domestic Violence; California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Casa de Esperanza;
Interval House Crisis Shelters & Centers for Victims of Domestic
Violence; Hermanas Latino Advocates Against Domestic Violence;
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (unless amended); Rainbow Services;
Salaam Middle Eastern Advocates Against Domestic Violence;
Slavic Voices-Slavic advocates against Domestic Violence; The
African American Network for Violence Free Relationships; The
Center Long Beach (LGBT victim support services); Women Shelter
of Long Beach.
HISTORY
Source : National Family Justice Center Alliance
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 914 (Bowen, Chapter 840, Statutes of 2004) among other
things, stated the intent of the Legislature that victims'
services programs that were administered by the Office of
Criminal Justice Planning be temporarily redirected to the
Office of Emergency Services, and that certain programs
involving domestic violence and sexual assault be permanently
consolidated in one office, branch, or department.
SB 1745 (Polanco, Chapter 187, Statutes of 2002) required child
protective services, law enforcement agencies, and others to
develop protocols in collaboration with one another, as
specified, as to how law enforcement and child welfare agencies
will cooperate in their response to a domestic violence related
incident in a home in which a child resides.
SB 557 (Kehoe)
Page 10 of ?
SB 425 (Torlakson, Chapter 90, Statutes of 2001) authorized a
pilot program in Contra Costa County, allowing the county to
provide governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts
within the county.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Public Safety (Ayes 6, Noes 0)
**************