BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              A
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

                                                                     1
                                                                     6
                                                                     2
          AB 1623 (Atkins)                                           3
          As Amended April 21, 2014 
          Hearing date:  June 10, 2014
          Penal Code
          AL/JRD:sl 

                               FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS: 

                   CO-LOCATED, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY VICTIM SERVICES  


                                       HISTORY

          Source:  National Family Justice Center Alliance

          Prior Legislation: SB 557 (Kehoe) - Ch. 262, Stats. 2011
                       SB 733 (Leno) - 2010, vetoed
                       AB 1669 (Leno) - 2007, vetoed
                       AB 50 (Leno) - Ch. 884, Stats. 2006

          Support: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal  
                   Employees, AFL-CIO; Alameda County Family Justice  
                   Center; Alameda County, Office of the District  
                   Attorney; American Academy of Pediatrics; California  
                   Association for Health Services at Home; California  
                   Coalition Against Sexual Assault; California Catholic  
                   Conference, Inc.; California District Attorneys  
                   Association; California Law Enforcement Association of  
                   Records Supervisors; California Correctional Peace  
                   Officers Association; California Probation, Parole, and  
                   Correctional Association; California State Association  
                   of Counties; California Teachers Association; Chief  
                   Probation Officers of California; Dress for Success;  
                   Family Justice Center Sonoma County;  L.A. County  
                   Probation Officers Union; National Association of  
                   Social Workers - California Chapter; One SAFE Place,  

                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageB

                   Shasta; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Sacramento  
                   County, Office of the District Attorney; San Diego  
                   County District Attorney; San Diego Family Justice  
                   Center VOICES Committee; San Diego Police Department;  
                   Stanislaus Family Justice Center; County of San Diego  

          Opposition:None known

          Assembly Floor Vote:  Ayes 78 - Noes 0



                                        KEY ISSUES
           
          SHOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS BE AUTHORIZED  
          TO ESTABLISH FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS?

          SHOULD FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SPECIFIED  
          PROVISIONS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES, PERSONNEL TRAINING,  
          CLIENT PRIVACY, AND OPERATIONS?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to 1) explicitly authorize a city,  
          county, city and county, or nonprofit organization to each  
          establish a family justice center (FJC) and 2) to set  
          requirements regarding the eligibility for services, personnel  
          training, client privacy, and operations of FJCs.    

          Existing law  authorizes each county to create a county task  
          force on violent crimes against women. The purpose of a county  
          task force may include coordinating services and responses among  
          governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations serving women  
          who are victims of violent crimes. (Penal Code §§ 14140(a) and  
          14141(d).)  

           Existing law  authorizes each county to establish interagency  
          domestic violence death review teams to assist in reviewing  
          domestic violence deaths and facilitating interagency  
          communication. (Penal Code § 11163.3.)



                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageC

           Existing law  provides that information developed by or shared  
          among members of domestic violence death review teams shall  
          remain confidential, as specified.  (Penal Code  
          §11163.3(e)-(g).)
           
          Existing law  authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to work  
          with specified agencies and organizations to develop a protocol  
          for the integration and coordination of state and local efforts  
          to address fatal domestic violence through the creation of a  
          statewide, collaborative domestic violence death review team.   
          (Penal Code § 11163.5.) 

           Existing law  authorizes the DOJ, with the cooperation of  
          specified organizations and agencies, to coordinate and  
          integrate state and local efforts to address fatal child abuse  
          and neglect, and to create a body of information to prevent  
          child abuse.  (Penal Code § 11174.34.)

           Existing law  requires 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 to develop, in  
          collaboration, protocols to facilitate coordinated responses to  
          cases of domestic violence in homes in which a child resides.   
          (Penal Code § 13732.)

           Existing law  provides that a victim has a privilege to refuse to  
          disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential  
          communication between the victim and a sexual assault counselor,  
          a domestic violence counselor, or a human trafficking  
          caseworker.  (Evidence Code § 1035.)  

          Definition
          
           This bill  defines "family justice centers" (FJC) as multiagency,  
          multidisciplinary service centers where public and private  
          agencies assign staff members to provide services to victims of  
          domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult  
          abuse, or human trafficking from one location in order to reduce  
          the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the  
          number of places victims must go to for help, and increase  
          access to services and support for victims and their children.  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageD

          Staff at a FJC may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the  
          following: 

                 Law enforcement personnel;
                 Medical personnel;
                 District attorneys and city attorneys;
                 Victim-witness program personnel;
                 Domestic violence shelter staff;
                 Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and  
               human trafficking advocates;
                 Social service agency staff members;
                 Child welfare agency social workers;
                 County health department staff;
                 City or county welfare and public assistance workers;
                 Nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
                 Civil legal service providers;
                 Supervised volunteers from partner agencies; and,
                 Other professionals providing services.

          Eligibility for Services 

           This bill  prevents a FJC from denying victims services on the  
          grounds of criminal history and prohibits conducting criminal  
          history searches on a victim at a FJC without the victim's  
          written consent, unless the criminal history search is pursuant  
          to an active criminal investigation.
           
          This bill  prohibits a FJC from requiring a crime victim to  
          participate in the criminal justice system or cooperate with law  
          enforcement in order to receive counseling, medical care, or  
          other services at a FJC. 

          Operations and Evaluation of Family Justice Centers 

           This bill  requires each FJC to consult with specified relevant  
          agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse and  
          their advocates in the operations process of the FJC and to  
          establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and  
          evaluation of the center by survivors of violence and abuse and  
          community-based crime victim service providers and advocates.

           This bill  requires each FJC to develop policies and procedures,  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageE

          in collaboration with local community-based crime victim service  
          providers and local survivors of violence and abuse, to ensure  
          coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the  
          safety of victims and professionals at the center who  
          participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy  
          groups.  

           This bill  requires each FJC to maintain a formal client  
          feedback, complaint, and input process to address client  
          concerns about services provided or the conduct of any FJC  
          professional, agency partners, or volunteers providing services  
          in the center.

          Client Privacy Protections

           This bill  provides that nothing in the provisions of this bill  
          is intended to abrogate existing laws regarding privacy or  
          information sharing and requires FJC staff to comply with the  
          laws governing their respective professions.

           This bill  requires each FJC to maintain a client consent policy  
          and to 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, legal, and victim counselor records.

           This bill  requires each FJC to have a designated privacy officer  
          to develop and oversee privacy policies and procedures  
          consistent with state and federal privacy laws and the Fair  
          Information Practice Principles.  This bill provides that at no  
          time shall a victim be required to sign a client consent form to  
          share information in order to access services.

           This bill  requires each FJC to obtain informed, written,  
          reasonably time-limited consent from the victim before sharing  
          information obtained from the victim with any staff member or  
          agency partner, except in either of the following cases:

             1.   A FJC is not required to obtain victim consent before  
               sharing information obtained from the victim with any staff  
               member or agency partner if the person, with the sensitive  
               information, is a mandated reporter, a peace officer, or a  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageF

               member of the prosecution team and is required to report or  
               disclose specific information or incidents. These persons  
               are required to inform the victim that they may share  
               information obtained from the victim without the victim's  
               consent. 

             2.   Each FJC is required to inform the victim that  
               information disclosed to staff or partner agencies at the  
               FJC may be shared with law enforcement without the victim's  
               consent if there is a mandatory duty to report, or the  
               client is a danger to himself or herself, or others. Each  
               FJC is required to obtain written acknowledgement that the  
               victim has been informed of this policy. 


           This bill  provides that a victim's authorization for sharing  
          information within a FJC shall not be construed as a universal  
          waiver of any existing evidentiary privilege that makes  
          confidential any communications or documents between the victim  
          and any service provider.  This bill prohibits the disclosure,  
          to any third party, of any oral or written communication or any  
          document authorized by the victim to be shared for the purposes  
          of enhancing safety and providing more effective and efficient  
          services to the victim, unless that third-party disclosure is  
          authorized by the victim, or required by other state or federal  
          law or by court order.
            
           This bill  provides that an individual staff member, volunteer,  
          or agency that has victim information governed by the provisions  
          of this bill shall not be required to disclose that information  
          unless the victim has consented to the disclosure or it is  
          otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court  
          order.

           This bill  provides that disclosure of information consented to  
          by the victim in a FJC, made for the purposes of clinical  
          assessment, risk assessment, safety planning, or service  
          delivery, is not a waiver of any specified privilege or  
          confidentiality provision, the lawyer-client privilege, the  
          physician-patient privilege, the psychotherapist-patient  
          privilege, the sexual assault counselor-victim privilege, or the  
          domestic violence counselor-victim privilege.


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageG


          Training Requirements
          
           This bill  requires each FJC to maintain a formal training  
          program with mandatory training for all staff members,  
          volunteers, and agency professionals of at least eight hours per  
          year on subjects including, but not limited to, privileges and  
          confidentiality, information sharing, risk assessment, safety  
          planning, victim advocacy, and high-risk case response.

                    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  
          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  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageH

          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 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.   




                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageI

          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  
               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:

            Family Justice Centers are a best practice model for  
            delivering supportive services to victims of various  
            crimes, but mostly focused on victims of sexual and  
            domestic abuse.  This model works by bringing together  
            specialized resources in one location to provide  
            better and more convenient services to victims and  
            their children.  The key difference between Family  
            Justice Centers and other multi-disciplinary models is  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageJ

            the presence of police officers and prosecutors.  

            The full-time presence of these criminal justice  
            system professionals in Family Justice Centers creates  
            special issues, necessitates special policies and  
            procedures and requires separate definitions in state  
            law to protect victim confidentiality and promote  
            responsible information sharing among community-based  
            and government-based agencies.

            Each service provider at Family Justice Centers is  
            bound by the standards of their respective profession;  
            however there is currently no over-arching structure  
            in law defining the boundaries between these  
            partnerships.

            This is unacceptable because there are currently 17  
            Family Justice Center's operating in California with  
            six additional sites under development.  Last year,  
            California Family Justice Centers helped 14,000  
            clients. 

            This bill will ensure that helping victims is the  
            first priority at Family Justice Centers.   
            Specifically, AB 1623 will protect victims by  
            explicitly stating that they need not participate in  
            the criminal justice system in order to obtain  
            services and that informed client consent is required  
            before information can be shared among partner  
            agencies

            In 2011, the legislature adopted legislation (SB 557)  
            to study four Family Justice Centers in California,  
            with the goal of the identifying challenges to the  
            effectiveness of these centers.  One of the  
            recommendations of that study was that all family  
            justice centers should implement policies to ensure  
            that survivors of abuse do not have to involve the  
            criminal justice system in order to access services  
            and that no information be shared with law enforcement  
            without the victim's agreement.



                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageK


         2.Background: Family Justice Centers as Multiagency,  
          Multi-disciplinary Service Models  

          The 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 FJC model as a best practice in the field of  
          domestic violence.  According to the OVW, 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 services; and  
          increased community support for the provision of services to  
                                              victims and their children. (Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope  
          for Hurting Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across  
          America (Volcano Press 2006).) According to the author, there  
          are currently seventeen FJCs in California and another six under  
          development. 
           
          In 2011, the Legislature enacted a pilot project to establish  
          FJCs in San Diego, Anaheim, and Alameda and Sonoma counties. (SB  
          557 (Kehoe), Chap. 262, Stats. 2011.)  The two-year pilot  
          project was in place through January 1, 2014 and required an  
          evaluation of the four centers to be reported to the  
          Legislature.  The evaluation was to include, among other things,  
          subjective and objective measurements of the impacts of  
          co-located multi-agency services on victims and their children,  
          barriers to receiving needed services, and any recommended best  
          practices and model protocols. 
           
          The evaluation found that the pilots "successfully served a  
          significant number of survivors and addressed multiple service  
          needs, supporting the need for co-located multi-agency service  
          models." (EMT Associates, Inc., Final Evaluation Results: Phase  
          II California Family Justice Initiative: Statewide Evaluation  
          (July 2013) (FJC Report).)  The FJC Report revealed that  
          domestic violence victims "benefited from a comprehensive  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageL

          service approach that considered the context of a safe and  
          supportive environment, an all-in-one service approach that  
          included the therapeutic and legal needs of survivors, and  
          individualized services that emphasized emotional support and  
          survivors getting the help that they needed.  These benefits  
          combined to form a 'whole system approach' that is greater than  
          the sum of its parts.  The importance of a supportive approach  
          that integrates both legal and therapeutic needs of survivors in  
          a multi-level approach that considers context, process, and  
          individualized services has been identified in the research and  
          was central in these findings." (Id. at 3.) 
           
          The FJC Report also found that the biggest barrier to obtaining  
          services from a FJC was the lack of awareness of the FJC itself.  
           In addition, the evaluation found that victims had concerns and  
          misinformation about immigration and child welfare issues before  
          coming to the FJC, but reported concerns largely dissipated  
          after visiting the FJC.  Specifically, "survivors concerns  
          included fear of deportation, fear of having children removed,  
          and a lack of awareness of legal services to address immigration  
          and citizenship" (Id. at 4.) 
           






















                                                                     (More)










          The FJC Report made a number of recommendations for FJC  
          operations, mostly regarding improved data collection and  
          reporting, to enable more robust evaluations of FJCs and to  
          further improve service delivery at FJCs. 

         3.Confidentiality and Privacy Protections
           
          California law provides that confidential communications between  
          victims and sexual assault counselors, domestic violence  
          counselors, and human trafficking caseworkers are privileged  
          communications that may be disclosed upon consent by the victim,  
          or under circumstances where a court orders disclosure of  
          information as relevant evidence for a related criminal  
          proceeding if the court determines that the probative value  
          outweighs the effect on the victim, the counseling relationship  
          and the counseling services.  (Evidence Code 1035, et seq.)

          Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and  
          Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), medical records and other  
          personal health information are confidential, subject to  
          specified exceptions and procedures.  (Pub. Law 104-191; 45 CFR  
          Pts. 160, 164.)  In fact, covered entities may disclose  
          protected health information to law enforcement officials for  
          specified law enforcement purposes, such as court orders, to  
          identify suspects or witnesses, to find missing persons,  
          information about a crime victim, notice of death and related  
          matters.

          FJCs, where law enforcement, domestic violence counselors and  
          even medical personnel are co-located together, raise both  
          privacy and confidentiality issues.  Victims of domestic  
          violence and other victims of crime serviced by FJCs will often  
          provide personal health information or undergo counseling or  
          medical examinations - which would fall under medical privacy  
          and privilege laws.  To address those concerns, the bill  
          contains a number of provisions designed to both safeguard  
          information and ensure that victims using the FJC understand how  
          their information may be shared between FJC member staff and  
          other FJC professionals.  

          Each FJC must maintain a client consent policy that is in  
          compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the  


                                                                     (More)







                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageN

          victim's confidentiality, including, but not limited to,  
          confidentiality of medical, legal, and victim counselor records.  
           A victim must not be required to sign a client consent form to  
          share information in order to access services from the FJC.   
          Under the bill, each FJC must have a designated privacy officer  
          to develop and oversee privacy policies and procedures  
          consistent with state and federal privacy laws and the Fair  
          Information Practice Principles.<1>  

          The bill also requires each FJC to obtain informed, written,  
          reasonably time limited, consent from a victim before sharing  
          information obtained from that victim with any FJC staff member  
          or partner.  A FJC is not, however, required to obtain consent  
          from the victim before sharing information from the victim with  
          a staff member or partner if the person is a mandated reporter,  
          a peace officer, or a member of the prosecution team and is  
          required to report or disclose specific information or  
          incidents.  Mandatory reporters are required to inform the  
          victim that they may share information from the victim without  
          his or her consent.  Additionally, each FJC must inform the  
          victim that information shared with staff members or partner  
          agencies at a FJC may be shared with law enforcement  
          professionals without the victim's consent where there is a  
          mandatory duty to report, or the victim is a danger to  
          themselves or others.  Each FJC must obtain written  
          acknowledgement that the victim has been informed of this  
          policy.

          The bill prohibits the disclosure, to any third party, of any  
          oral or written communication or any document authorized by the  
          victim to be shared for the purposes of enhancing safety and  
          providing more effective and efficient services to the victim,  
          unless that third-party disclosure is authorized by the victim,  
          or required by other state or federal law or by court order.   
          Additionally, disclosure of information authorized by the victim  
          in a FJC, made for the purposes of clinical assessment, risk  
          assessment, safety planning, or service delivery, is not a  
          waiver of specified privileges, including lawyer-client  
          privilege, physician-patient privilege, or domestic violence  
          counselor-victim privilege.
          ---------------------------
          <1> The Fair Information Practice Principles are privacy  
          principles established by the U.S. Department of Homeland  
          Security for protecting personal information.    









                                                           AB 1623 (Atkins)
                                                                      PageO


          Additionally, this bill prohibits searching a victim's criminal  
          history without the written consent of the victim, unless the  
          search is pursuant to an active criminal investigation.  The  
          bill clarifies that crime victims are not required to  
          participate in the criminal justice system or cooperate with law  
          enforcement in order to receive counseling, medical care, or  
          other services from the FJC.

          Finally, each FJC is required to maintain a formal mandatory  
          training program for all staff members, volunteers, and agency  
          professionals on, among other things, privilege, confidentiality  
          and information sharing.  

         4.Integrated Services for Crime Victims  

          The objective of an FJC is to bring all victim services together  
          under one roof to provide enhanced assistance to victims.   
          According to those in support, in order for those various public  
          and private groups to work together optimally, collaboration and  
          coordination is key.  This bill seeks to enhance that  
          collaboration in two ways.  First, each FJC must consult with  
          community-based victims' organizations, as well as the victims  
          themselves and their advocates, in the operations process of the  
          FJCs.  Second, the FJCs must establish procedures for ongoing  
          input, feedback and evaluation of the FJCs by victims, advocates  
          and service providers, along with a complaint process.  These  
          required lines of communication should help improve not only the  
          collaboration among the various stakeholders, but also the  
          services delivered to victims.


                                   ***************