BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
3
0
AB 230 (Maienschein)
As Amended January 8, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Business and Professions Code
MK:sl
YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAMS:
BACKGROUND CHECKS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 465 (Bonilla and Maienschein), Chapter 146,
Stats. 2014
AB 1027 (Bonilla) 2013 held Assembly Public
Safety
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California State
PTA; The Alliance for Background Checks for Youth
Sports
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAM BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN NOTICE REGARDING ITS BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY TO THE PARENT
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 2
OR GUARDIAN OF A PARTICIPANT?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require a community youth
athletic program, beginning January 1, 2016, to provide written
notice of its criminal background check policy to the parent or
guardian of any youth participating in the program.
Existing law requires the California Department of Justice (DOJ)
to maintain state summary criminal history information and to
furnish state summary criminal history information to
statutorily authorized entities under certain circumstances.
(Penal Code § 11105(a)(b))
Existing law authorizes a human resource agency or an employer
to request from DOJ records of all convictions or any arrest
pending adjudication involving specified offenses of a person
who applies for a license, employment, or a volunteer position
in which he or she would have supervisory or disciplinary power
over a minor or any person under his or her care. (Penal Code §
11105.3(a))
Existing law requires any request to DOJ for records to include
the applicant's fingerprints, and requires DOJ to forward
requests for federal level criminal offender record information
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to be searched for
any record of arrests or convictions. (Penal Code § 11105.3(b))
Existing law requires the agency or employer to notify the
parents or guardians of any minor who will be supervised or
disciplined by the employee or volunteer at least 10 days before
the prospective employee's or volunteer's start date if a
request reveals that he or she has been convicted of specified
offenses and has been hired. (Penal Code § 11105.3(c))
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 3
Existing law states that any criminal history information
obtained, as specified, is confidential and a recipient shall
not disclose its contents other than for the purpose for which
it was acquired. (Penal Code § 11105.3(h))
Existing law authorizes DOJ to provide subsequent state or
federal arrest or disposition notification to any entity
authorized by state or federal law to receive state or federal
summary criminal history information to assist in fulfilling
employment, licensing, certification duties, or the duties of
approving relative caregivers and nonrelative extended family
members, upon the arrest or disposition of any person whose
fingerprints are maintained on file at DOJ or the FBI as the
result of an application for licensing, employment,
certification, or approval. (Penal Code § 11105.2(a))
Existing law requires any entity that submits the fingerprints
of an applicant for employment, licensing, certification, or
approval to DOJ for the purpose of establishing a record at DOJ
or the FBI to receive notification of subsequent arrest or
disposition to immediately notify the department if the
applicant is not subsequently employed, or if the applicant is
denied licensing certification, or approval. (Penal Code
§11105.2(f))
Existing law prohibits a person who is required to register as a
sex offender because of a conviction for a crime in which the
victim was a minor under 16 years of age from being an employer,
employee, or independent contractor or acting as a volunteer
with any person, group or organization in a capacity in which
the registrant would be working directly and in an unaccompanied
setting with minor children on more than an incidental and
occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over
minor children, and makes a violation of this provision a
misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 290.95(c),(e))
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 4
Existing law authorizes a community youth athletic program, as
defined, to request state- and federal-level criminal history
information for a volunteer coach or hired coach candidate.
(Penal Code § 11105.3(j))
Existing law defines a "community youth athletic program" as an
employer having as its primary purpose the promotion or
provision of athletic activities for youth under 18 years of
age. (Penal Code § 11105.3(i))
Existing law defines "employer" as any nonprofit corporation or
other organization specified by the Attorney General that
employs or uses the services of volunteers in positions in which
the volunteer or employee has supervisory or disciplinary power
over a child or children. (Penal Code § 11105.3(f))
Existing law requires the director of the program to be the
custodian of records. (Penal Code § 11105.3(j))
Existing law authorizes the program to request from DOJ
subsequent arrest notification service, as specified, for a
volunteer coach or a hired coach candidate. (Penal Code §
11105.3(k))
Existing law states that compliance with these provisions does
not remove or limit the liability of a mandated reporter. (Penal
Code § 11105.3(l))
This bill requires, commencing January 1, 2016, a community
youth athletic program to provide to the parent or guardian of
any youth participating in the program written notice that
states whether or not the program obtains criminal background
checks for hired or volunteer coaches, or both.
This bill requires, if the program obtains criminal background
checks, that the written notice include the following
information:
A statement as to whether or not the criminal background
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 5
check includes state and federal criminal history
information and if the program obtains subsequent arrest
notification for those individuals; and,
Contact information regarding where a parent or guardian
can obtain additional information about the program's
background check policy, such as the entity providing the
criminal background check obtained by the program or the
nature of the types of offenses the program looks for.
This bill defines a "community youth athletic program" as an
organization that meets both of the following requirements:
Its primary purpose is the promotion or provision of
athletic activities for youth under 18 years of age; and,
It has adult employees who have supervisory or
disciplinary power over a child.
This bill states that nothing in this bill shall require or
authorize a community youth athletic program to disclose
confidential criminal history information, as specified.
This bill specifies that "written notice" may include posting
the information on the program's Internet Web site.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 6
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 7
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
(More)
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
This bill is intended to inform parents of the
background check policies or lack thereof for community
youth sports programs, giving parents the tools they
need to make informed decisions about the activities in
which they place their children.
2. Background Check Policies for Youth Sports Organizations
(More)
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 9
Many national sports organizations, including the American Youth
Soccer Organization and Little League International, require
volunteers who work with children to undergo specified criminal
background checks. Other groups, like the National Alliance for
Youth Sports (which partners with parks and recreation
departments, Boys and Girls Clubs, Police Athletic Leagues, and
other community-based organizations) recommend that
organizations conduct criminal background checks on all
volunteers and make available a written screening policy. In
addition to conducting criminal background checks through the
DOJ, there are also private
companies that provide, for a fee, background check services and
access to national criminal database and sex offender
information using names or social security numbers, although
background checks using just names and birthdates are not as
accurate. For example, Little League International contracts
with a company to provide its members with access to national
criminal and sex offender registry records using a person's
social security number.
3. Notice to Participants
This bill would require a youth athletic program to notify the
parent or guardian of participants if the program does a
criminal background check of their coaches and volunteers. It
also provides that if they do a criminal background check that
they must disclose whether the check includes state and federal
information and what type of offenses the program looks for.
4. Related Legislation
AB 1852 (Campos), also scheduled to be heard on June 17,
requires a business providing services to minors, including but
not limited to academic tutors and instructors of
extracurricular activities, to disclose to parents or guardians
the business' policies relating to background checks of
employees and the type of background check conducted, and
exempts certain child care and medical facilities from this
AB 230 (Maienschein)
Page 10
requirement.
***************