BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
6
2
AB 1629 (Bonta) 9
As Amended May 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 2014
Government Code
JM:sl
VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND:
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PEER VIOLENCE RECOVERY COUNSELING
HISTORY
Source: Youth Alive
Prior Legislation: AB 2809 (Leno) Ch. 587, Statutes of 2008
AB 2869 (Leno) Ch. 582, Statutes of 2006
AB 2413 (Spitzer) Ch. 571, Stats. 2006
AB 105 (Cohn) Ch. 539, Stats. 2006
SB 972 (Poochigian) Ch. 238, Stats. 2005
SB 631 (McPherson) Ch. 223, Stats. 2004
SB 1423 (Chesbro) Ch. 1141, Stats. 2002
AB 2898 (Bowler) Ch. 1077, Stats. 1996
Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO; California Catholic Conference of
Bishops; Californians for Safety and Justice; Children's
Defense Fund, California; Crime Victims United of
California; National Network of Hospital-based Violence
Intervention Programs; Mayor of the City of Oakland;
Oakland City Council; PolicyLink; San Francisco
Wraparound Project; WellSpace Health
Opposition:Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageB
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 79 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE VICTIMS OF CRIME PROGRAM BE DIRECTED TO REIMBURSE
SPECIFIED VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME FOR ELIGIBLE PEER VIOLENCE
RECOVERY COUNSELING?
SHOULD PEER VIOLENCE COUNSELING REIMBURSEMENT BE CONSIDERED MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT, INCLUDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS?
SHOULD PEER VIOLENCE COUNSELORS ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION MEET
SPECIFIED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) authorize or direct the Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board to reimburse specified
victims for peer violence counseling from eligible programs; and
2) require that peer violence counselors eligible for board
compensation have six months of violence recovery counseling
experience and complete 40 hours of training in the conditions
afflicting victims of violence, techniques for assisting in
recovery by victims and case management.
Existing law states that all persons who suffer losses as a result
of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the
perpetrators. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28(b)(13).)
Existing law requires the court, to order a criminal defendant to
pay both a restitution fine and restitution to the victim or
victims, if any, in addition to any other penalty provided or
imposed under the law. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (a)(3).)
Existing law establishes the Victims Compensation and Government
Claims Board (VCGCB or board) to operate the California Victim
Compensation Program (CalVCP). (Gov. Code, § 13950 et. seq.)
Existing law provides than an application for compensation shall
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageC
be filed with VCGCB in the manner determined by the board. (Gov.
Code, § 13952, subd. (a).)
Existing law states that except as provided by specified sections
of the Government Code, a person shall be eligible for
compensation when all of the following requirements are met:
The person from whom compensation is being sought any of
the following:
o A victim;
o A derivative victim; or,
o A person who is entitled to reimbursement for
funeral, burial or crime scene clean-up expenses
pursuant to specified sections of the Government Code.
Either of the following conditions is met:
o The crime occurred within California, whether or
not the victim is a resident of California. This only
applies when the VCGCB determines that there are federal
funds available to the state for the compensation of
crime victims; or,
o Whether or not the crime occurred within the
State of California, the victim was any of the
following:
§ A California resident;
§ A member of the military stationed in
California; or,
§ A family member living with a member
of the military stationed in California.
If compensation is being sought for derivative victim, the
derivative victim is a resident of California, or the
resident of another state who is any of the following:
o At the time of the crimes was the parent,
grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or grandchild of the
victim;
o At the time of the crime was living in the
household of the victim;
o At the time of the crime was a person who had
previously lived in the house of the victim for a person
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageD
of not less than two years in a relationship
substantially similar to a previously listed
relationship;
§ Another family member of the victim
including, but not limited to, the victim's fiancé
or fiancée, and who witnessed the crime; or,
§ Is the primary caretaker of a minor
victim, but was not the primary caretaker at the
time of the crime. (Gov. Code, § 13955.)
Existing law defines the term "derivative victim" as a person who
was one of the following at the time of the crime:
A parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or
grandchild of the victim;
A person living in the household of the victim;
A person who previously lived in the victim's household
for not less than two years in a relationship substantially
similar to that of a family member described in the first
bullet point, above;
One who was another kind of family member - such as fiancé
or fiancée and witnessed the crime; or,
The primary caretaker of a minor who was the crime victim.
(Gov. Code § 13955, subd. (c)(1)-(5).)
Existing law authorizes VCGCB to reimburse for pecuniary loss for
the following types of losses (Gov. Code, § 13957, subd. (a)):
The amount of medical or medical-related expenses incurred
by the victim, subject to specified limitations;
The amount of out-patient psychiatric, psychological or
other mental health counseling-related expenses incurred by
the victim, as specified, including peer counseling services
provided by a rape crisis center;
The expenses of non-medical remedial care and treatment
rendered in accordance with a religious method of healing
recognized by state law;
Compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of
support, or both, that a victim or derivative victim incurs
as a direct result of the victim's injury or the victim's
death, subject to specified limitations;
Cash payment to, or on behalf of, the victim for job
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageE
retraining or similar employment-oriented services;
The expense of installing or increasing residential
security, not to exceed $1,000, with respect to a crime that
occurred in the victim's residence, upon verification by law
enforcement to be necessary for the personal safety of the
victim or by a mental health treatment provider to be
necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim;
The expense of renovating or retrofitting a victim's
residence or a vehicle to make them accessible or
operational, if it is medically necessary; and,
Expenses incurred in relocating, as specified, if the
expenses are determined by law enforcement to be necessary
for the personal safety or by a mental health treatment
provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the
victim.
Existing law limits reimbursement for outpatient mental health
counseling, including peer counseling provided by a rape crisis
center, to either $10,000 or $5,000, depending on the category of
claimant.
$10,000 maximum mental health treatment reimbursement is
available for the following claimants:
o A victim;
o A derivative victim who is the surviving parent,
child, sibling, fiancé or fiancée of a victim who died
as a result of the crime; and,
o A derivative victim who is the primary caretaker
of a minor victim, with specified requirements and
exception.
$5,000 maximum mental health treatment reimbursement is
available for the following claimants:
o A derivative victim who is not eligible for the
$10,000 maximum reimbursement;
o A specified derivative victim if mental health
treatment is necessary;
o A victim of unlawful sexual intercourse, as
defined in Penal Code Section 261.5; and,
o A minor who suffers emotional injury because he
or she witnessed a violent crime and who is not
otherwise eligible for reimbursement. (Gov. Code §
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageF
13957.)
Existing law provides that "the board may establish maximum rates
and service limitations for reimbursement of medical and medical
related services and for mental health and counseling services"
below the maximum rates in statute. (Gov. Code § 13957.2.)
Existing law limits the total award to or on behalf of each victim
to $35,000, except that this amount may be increased to $70,000 if
federal funds for that increase are available. (Gov. Code, §
13957, subd. (b).)
Existing law requires the board to pay an approved claim for
medical or mental health services within 90 days of approval.
Where the board determines that payments to a provider will be
discontinued, notice must be given to the provider within 30
calendar days. (Gov. Code § 13957.2, subd. (c).)
Existing law states that an application shall be denied if VCGCB
finds that the victim or derivative victim failed to cooperate
reasonably with law enforcement. However, in determining whether
cooperation was reasonable, VCGCB shall consider the victim's or
derivative victim's age, physical condition, and psychological
state, cultural or linguistic barriers and compelling health and
safety concerns. These concerns include but not limited to,
reasonable fear of retaliation or harm jeopardizing the well-being
of the victim, victim's family, derivative victim or derivative
victim's family. (Gov. Code, § 13956, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law provides that a domestic violence claim may not be
denied solely because the victim did not make a police report.
The board shall adopt guidelines to consider and approve domestic
violence claims based on evidence other than a police report. The
evidence may include, but is not limited to, relevant medical or
mental health records, or the fact that the victim has obtained a
temporary or permanent restraining order. (Gov. Code, § 13956,
subd. (b)(2).)
Existing law states that an application for a claim based on human
trafficking, as defined, of the Penal Code may not be denied
solely because no police report was made by the victim. VCGCB
shall adopt guidelines that allow the board to consider and
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageG
approve applications for assistance based on human trafficking
relying upon evidence other than a police report to establish that
a human trafficking crime, as defined, has occurred. That
evidence may include any reliable corroborating information
approved by the board, including, but not limited to, the
following (Gov. Code, § 13956, subd. (b)(3).):
A Law Enforcement Agency Endorsement was issued, as
specified; or,
A human trafficking caseworker has attested by affidavit
that the individual was a victim of human trafficking.
Existing regulations provide that a victim has the burden to prove
that a crime for which compensation may be paid occurred. Medical
or mental health records may not be sufficient to prove the crime
occurred. (2 CCR § 649.38)
Existing regulations provide the following as concerns the
responsibility of victims to cooperate with law enforcement:
(a) A victim or derivative victim shall reasonably
cooperate with any law enforcement agency in its
investigation of the qualifying crime and the
apprehension and prosecution of any person involved in
the qualifying crime;
(b) A victim or derivative victim who knowingly and
willingly failed to reasonably cooperate with a law
enforcement agency in the investigation of the
qualifying crime and the apprehension and conviction of
any person involved in the qualifying crime is not
eligible for assistance;
(c) A victim or derivative victim who initially
cooperated with a law enforcement agency as required by
subsection (a), and was determined to be eligible for
assistance, and subsequently knowingly and willingly
failed to cooperate with a law enforcement agency, may
be found eligible for assistance only during the period
the victim or derivative victim cooperated with a law
enforcement agency. ?(e) Cooperation with a law
enforcement agency includes, but is not limited to:
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageH
(1) reporting the qualifying crime;
(2) completely and truthfully responding to requests
for information in a timely manner;
(3) cooperating with identifying and apprehending any
person involved in the qualifying crime; and,
(4) testifying in all proceedings, including
restitution proceedings, as required.
(2 CCR § 649.59.)
Existing law provides that a sexual assault services program
(SASP) , including a rape crisis center, that is eligible for a
grant from the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA)
shall provide the following services:
Crisis intervention 24 hours a day, every day;
Follow-up counseling;
In person counseling, individual or group;
Accompaniment services;
Information and referrals for victims and the public;
Community education presentations; and,
Rape prevention and self-defense programs. (Pen. Code §
13837, subd. (a).)
This bill allows the board to reimburse for outpatient violence
peer counseling expenses to direct or derivative crime victims.
This bill defines "service organization for victims of violent
crimes" as "a nongovernmental organization" meeting both of the
following criteria:
Has a primary mission of providing services to victims of
violent crime; and,
Provides programs or services to victims of violent crime
and their families, and other programs, regardless of whether
a similar program exists in an agency that provides
additional services.
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageI
This bill defines "violence peer counseling" as "counseling by a
violence peer counselor for the purpose of rendering advice or
assistance for victims of violent crime and their families."
This bill defines "violence peer counselor" as "a provider of
formal or informal counseling services who is employed by a
service organization for victims of violent crime, whether
financially compensated or not" who has met specified requirements
and standards.
This bill provides that a violence peer counselor shall meet the
following requirements:
The counselor must have at least six months of full-time
equivalent experience providing peer support services
acquired through employment, volunteer work, or an
internship;
He or she must have completed a training program for
preparing a former mental health services consumer to use his
or her life experience with mental health treatment, combined
with other strengths and skills, to promote the recovery of
other mental health services consumers in need of peer-based
services for recovery from violent crime; and,
The training shall consist of 40 hours of training on all
of the following:
o Profound neurological, biological,
psychological, and social effects of trauma and
violence;
o Peace-building and violence prevention,
including, but not limited to, conflict mediation and
retaliation prevention related to gangs and gang-related
violence;
o Post-traumatic stress disorder and vicarious
trauma, especially as related to gangs and gang-related
violence; and,
o Case management practices, including, but not
limited to, ethics and victim compensation advocacy.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageJ
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
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
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageK
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.
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;
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageL
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:
The California Attorney General has reported a three
percent increase in violent crime from 2011-2012. These
statistics demonstrate the need to expand statewide
efforts to curb violence. The California Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board's Victims of
Crime Program (board) received 54,115 applications for
assistance in fiscal year 2012-2013. Of those greater
than half -29,000- were related to violent crimes,
excluding sexual assault. Ending violent crime and
supporting victims of violent crime should be major
priorities for the state.
AB 1629 will support violence prevention efforts,
targeting those eligible for benefits offered by the
board. For example, victims of gun violence often
return to the environment where the crime occurred.
This return creates a cycle where victims are constantly
traumatized by experiencing the event over and over.
Moreover, victims are also more likely to be victimized
again in the place where the violence occurred.
Hospital-based violence intervention programs are proven
to be effective in ending the trend; AB 1629 removes a
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageM
statutory barrier to achieving that objective.
AB 1629 would provide reimbursement for a crime victim
or derivative victim for outpatient violence peer
counseling expenses, thereby providing greater and more
equitable access to services for all victims of violent
crime. This reimbursement is a first step to curbing
community violence and supporting victims. Setting up
a pay-for-service reimbursement for 'Violence
Intervention Specialists' would accomplish two things:
(1) Allow more organizations to offer intervention
specialist services to victims, and (2) Increase the
number of victims receiving benefits, who can spread
awareness among victims about the services offered. AB
1629 is part of the recognition that all victims of
violent crime deserve support and assistance. AB 1629
is also a big step toward relieving our communities of
the violence that plagues them.
2. Basic Purpose and History of the Victims of Crime Program
The victims' compensation program (CalVCP) in the Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board (board) was created in
1965, the first such program in the country<1>. VCGCB provides
compensation for victims of violent crime. It reimburses
eligible victims for many crime-related expenses. Funding for
the board comes from restitution fines and penalty assessments
paid by criminal offenders, as well as federal matching funds.
The other core function of the board is to review claims
against the state and request payment of claims by the
Legislature in annual legislation. A person must present a
claim for damages against the state to the board before
filing a lawsuit.<2>
3. Crime Victim Reimbursement Statutes are Likely very Difficult
for Lay Victims to Understand
The crime victim reimbursement statutes are extremely layered and
complex. A victim or "derivative" victim of a crime faces a
daunting task in determining how much reimbursement is available
-----------------------------
<1> http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/board/
<2> http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/claims/
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageN
for what level or amount of services. A victim must negotiate a
relatively complex application process. The board may request
additional documentation. The victim must then typically wait
many months for a ruling on the application and payment of
reimbursement. A victim might well wish to have an attorney,
victim-witness program, trauma recovery center or other source
assist him or her in the claim process.
4. Reimbursement for Mental Health Services Through the Victims of
Crime Fund
Typically, the victim compensation program covers individual,
family, and group therapy necessary as a direct result of the
qualifying crime. There are both monetary and service limitations
for mental health services. A victim can obtain services from
different types of mental health providers, including licensed
psychiatrists, licensed or registered psychologists, licensed
clinical social workers, marriage family therapists, psychological
assistants, licensed professional clinical counselors, peer
counselors, psychiatric mental-health nurses, clinical nurse
specialists, and certain types of interns.
However, peer counseling is only available<3> to victims of sexual
assault who obtain services from a rape crisis center - formally
described as a sexual assault services program (SASP) - as defined
in Penal Code Section 13837. Peer sexual assault counseling is
generally not reimbursed through payments by the board, however.
Peer sexual assault programs generally receive block grant funding
under the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), as disbursed
through Cal EMA. Unlike the board, VOCA money is not used to
reimbursement victims for fees paid to service providers on a
per-session basis. The board cannot provide reimbursement to an
entity that has another source of funding, as the board is
intended to be a funding source of last resort for crime victims.
(Gov. Code 13951, subd. (e).)
Further, as the board receives substantial funding from VOCA,
other entities that receive VOCA money through Cal EMA would be
prohibited from essentially double dipping by receiving board
-----------------------------
<3>
http://www.vcgcb.ca.gov/providers/mental.aspx#reimbursableproviders
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageO
payments that are significantly drawn from VOCA funding and that
would otherwise be used for services to other victims.<4> Thus,
the board has been authorized to provide reimbursement for peer
sexual assault counseling only in a very limited number of cases.
5. Peer Counseling - Background
Peer counseling is "the process of giving and receiving
non-clinical assistance to achieve long-term recovery from severe
psychiatric, traumatic or addiction challenges. This support is
provided by peer supporters - people who have 'lived experience'
and have been trained to assist others in initiating and
maintaining long-term recovery and enhancing the quality of life
for individuals and their families."<5>
6. Issues Concerning Training and Experience of Peer Counseling
It appears that the bill does not fully explain the kind of
training that is required or acceptable for peer violence
counselors. Further, the bill does not specify what entity or
person verifies the peer counselor's training or competence.
Similar questions could be raised about peer sexual assault
counselors. However, the Penal Code section stating the
requirements funding of a SASP are sufficiently detailed so as to
likely provide a level of competence for peer counselors in most
SASP programs. In contrast with peer counselors, licensed
therapists - clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, and
marriage and family therapists - have extensive academic and
clinical training and are subject to oversight and discipline by a
state agency.
The bill also does not clearly provide or indicate how the board
would determine or confirm that a peer violence counselor meets
the training and experience requirements in this bill. If the
board must confirm that a victim is seeking reimbursement for
services from a qualified peer counselor, approval and payment of
-----------------------------
<4> http://www.ovc.gov/voca/vaguide.htm
<5>(See National Practice Guidelines for Peer Supporters,
< http://na4ps.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/nationalguidelines1.pdf >.
)
(More)
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageP
claims could be delayed. The claims system has been prone to
delays for many years. Additional delays could be a hardship on
victims.
The limited expertise and training of peer counselors could be
problematic if a victim engages in peer counseling who should be
receiving clinical care. This problem may be balanced by the
benefit
of peer counseling to a victim of violent crime who would not
otherwise receive any counseling or care.
7. Peer Violence Counseling is Reimbursed as Mental Health
Treatment, but at a Rate of $15 for no more than 10 Sessions
Peer counseling is considered mental health treatment for purposes
of determining maximum monetary reimbursement and number treatment
sessions. Peer counseling reimbursement would thus reduce the
money available for expert clinical care. However, the board has
authority to set and reduce reimbursement rates below the limits
set in statute.<6> The rate of reimbursement for peer counseling
is $15 per session for no more than 10 sessions - a maximum of
$150. Thus, reimbursement for peer counseling would not likely
reduce the ability of a victim to obtain clinical services, unless
rates for peer counseling are substantially increased.
(More)
-----------------------------
<6> In 2011, the board reduced reimbursement rates 10% for most
services due to concerns over the balance in the Restitution Fund.
The reductions are still in effect. The rates for peer
counseling were not reduced.
Further, the board may only reimburse victims for services and
other costs directly related to or flowing from the crime. The
peer violence counseling programs described in this bill will
provide a wide array of other services - such as violence
prevention - that are not likely reimbursable by the board. This
could complicate accounting for the organizations in order to seek
reimbursement for authorized services only.
8. Audit of the Victims of Crime Program
2008 California State Auditor Report on the Victim Compensation
Program
The Bureau of State Audit (BSA) report in 2008 included the
following highlights:
From fiscal years 2001-02 through 2004-05, program compensation
payments decreased from $123.9 million to $61.6 million-a 50
percent decline. Despite the significant decline in payments,
the costs to support the program increased.
Administrative costs make up a significant portion of the
Restitution Fund disbursements-ranging from 26 percent to 42
percent annually.
The program did not always process applications and bills as
promptly or efficiently as it could have. Board staff took
longer than 180 days to process applications in two instances
out of 49, and longer than 90 days to pay bills for 23 of 77
paid bills.
The board did not adequately investigate alternative sources of
funding for victim reimbursement, such as insurance and public
aid.
The program's numerous problems with the transition to a new
application and bill processing system led to a reported
increase in complaints regarding delays in processing
applications and bills.
Some payments in CaRES<7> appeared to be erroneous. Although
board staff provided explanations for the erroneous payments,
the fact that they were unaware of these items indicated an
absence of controls that would prevent erroneous payments.
The board lacks the necessary system documentation for CaRES.
----------------------------
<7> Claim review computer system.
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageR
There are no benchmarks, performance measures, or formal
written procedures for workload management.
2010 Update and Progress Report
In 2010, BSA found that the program had partially corrected five
of the problems noted in the audit and corrected five others. The
BSA urged the board to continue correcting the problems noted in
the report. For example:
The board reduced administrative costs, but processing times
for claims had increased.
The board increased collections, but it had not determined
whether outreach programs had been successful and satisfaction
with the program had increased.
The board implemented better training program for employees
who examined claims submitted by crime victims.
The board developed an inventory monitoring system and set
performance benchmarks. The monitoring should improve
identification and understanding of eligibility requirements.
Board training includes an emphasis on alternative funding
sources
The board did complete a chapter on appeals of denials in its
manual.
The board did improve its use of the CaRES computer system.
However, claims were still more quickly processed in the local
agencies with which the board contracts.
It appears that the BSA has not issued a progress report or update
on the program since 2010. It is not clear what the board has
done to address the issues raised in the BSA audit since that
time. Many, if not most, of these issues affect the ability of
the board to timely and adequately compensate victims, including
the ability to compensate elderly and dependent adult victims of
fraud. The issues will also be addressed in the Appropriations
Committee.
HAS THE VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAM CONTINUED TO ADDRESS ISSUES
RAISED IN THE 2008 REPORT BY THE STATE AUDITOR?
***************
AB 1629 (Bonta)
PageS