BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
5
4
AB 1547 (Gomez) 7
As Introduced January 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
AL/AA:mc
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL
HISTORY
Source: California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Prior Legislation: SB 273 (Corbett) - Ch. 177, Stats. 2009
AB 503 (Furutani) - vetoed by Governor, 2009
SB 1895 (Escutia) - Ch. 510, Stats. 2002
Support: Alameda County District Attorney; Alameda County Family
Justice Center; Alliance Against Family Violence and
Sexual Assault; Casa de Esperanza; California Coalition
Against Sexual Assault; Californians for Safety and
Justice; Center for Community Solutions; Community
Overcoming Relationship Abuse; Haven Women's Center of
Stanislaus; Hermanas; Human Options; Interval House;
Peace Over Violence; Rainbow Services; Slavic Voices;
Stand for Families Free of Violence; Stand Up Placer,
Inc.; Holman United Methodist Church; African American
Network for Violence Free Relationships; STAND! For
Families Free of Violence; Interface Children & Family
Services; Salaam; California Catholic Conference, Inc.;
California Communities United Institute; Planned
Parenthood; California District Attorneys Association;
(More)
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageB
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE JANUARY 1, 2015, SUNSET DATE ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVISORY COUNCIL BE REPEALED?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the January 1, 2015,
sunset date, and thus extend indefinitely the existence of the
Office of Emergency Services Domestic Violence Advisory Council.
Existing law establishes the Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES) which is responsible for "activities necessary to prevent,
respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of
emergencies and disasters to people and property." (Gov. Code §
8585(e).)
Existing law establishes a Comprehensive Statewide Domestic
Program administered by Cal OES to provide financial and
technical assistance to local domestic violence service
providers, as specified. (Pen. Code § 13823.15(b).)
Existing law requires Cal OES to consult with an advisory
committee in implementing the program and allocating funds to
eligible service providers. (Pen. Code § 13823.15(c).)
Cal OES Domestic Violence Advisory Council
Existing law establishes an appointed Cal OES Domestic Violence
Advisory Council (DVAC) comprised of experts in the provision of
(More)
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageC
either direct or intervention services to victims of domestic
violence and their children. (Pen. Code § 13823.16(a).)
Existing law requires DVAC to include representatives from
domestic-violence victims' advocacy groups; battered-women
service providers; women's organization; law enforcement; at
least one representative servicing the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender communities; and other groups involved with
domestic violence. At least one-half of DVAC must consist of
domestic violence victims' advocates or battered women service
providers. Legislative intent expresses that membership of DVAC
should reflect the diversity of the state. DVAC consists of no
more than 13 voting members and two nonvoting ex officio members
with seven voting members appointed by the Governor, three by
the Speaker of the Assembly, and three by the Senate Rules
Committee. The two nonvoting members are to be members of the
Legislature. (Pen. Code § 13823.16(b).)
Existing law requires DVAC and Cal OES to closely collaborate in
developing funding priorities, framing the request for
proposals, and soliciting proposals for the program. (Pen. Code
§ 13823.16(c).)
Under existing law , the provisions above will sunset on January
1, 2015.
This bill would delete the January 1, 2015, sunset date as it
applies to the provisions above.
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
(More)
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageD
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
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 can comply with
(More)
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageE
(More)
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.
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
(More)
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageG
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 This Bill
According to the author:
Through Penal Code 13823.16, the Domestic Advisory
Council's (DVAC) Sunset Date will be expiring on
January 1, 2015. AB 1547 would eliminate the sunset
date permanently. The DVAC is to collaborate with the
CA Governor's Office of Emergency Services to ensure
the safety and security of all domestic violence
victims through the development of policies, procedures
and priorities which promote effective and accessible
services for victims. The DVAC has an important role
in ensuring that the voices of domestic violence
experts from across the state are heard in the
administration of the Comprehensive Statewide Domestic
Violence Program. Removing the sunset date will allow
DVAC to continue to fulfill its important role.
2.Background: Domestic Violence Advisory Council (DVAC)
Originally established by SB 1895 (Escutia, 2002), DVAC was
created to reform the state's funding process for domestic
violence shelters by engaging domestic violence victims'
advocates and battered-women service providers, among others, on
agency guidelines and decisions. Today, Cal OES collaborates
with DVAC to "ensure the safety and security of all Domestic
Violence victims through the development of policies, procedures
and priorities which promote effective and accessible services
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageH
for victims."<1> Specifically, this includes consultation on at
least four major Cal OES domestic violence assistance
initiatives: the Domestic Violence Assistance Program (DVAP),
the Equality in Prevention and Services for Domestic Abuse
Program, the Domestic Violence Response Team Program, and the
Family Violence Prevention Program.
3.Argument in Support
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the sponsor
of this bill, states, "DVAC provides an opportunity for the
voices of domestic violence experts from across the state to be
heard in the administration of the Comprehensive Statewide
Domestic Violence Program, which provides funding for domestic
violence shelters and programs across California. The Advisory
Council allows these experts to collaborate with Cal OES in
developing funding priorities and requests for proposals. DVAC
helps ensure that the Cal OES administered funding programs are
effectively responding to the needs of the victims and survivors
across California.
"AB 1547 will remove the sunset date allowing the Domestic
Violence Advisory Council to continue its important work."
4.Effect of This Bill
This bill would repeal the January 1, 2015, sunset date
pertaining to the Office of Emergency Services Domestic Violence
Advisory Council. The sunset provision for DVAC was extended
once before under SB 273 (Corbett, 2009) to the current date now
set in statute. This bill would indefinitely extend the
existence of DVAC by eliminating the sunset provision.
***************
---------------------------
<1>
http://www.calema.ca.gov/publicsafetyandvictimservices/Pages/Dome
stic-Violence-Advisory-Council-(DVAC).aspx
AB 1547 (Gomez)
PageI