BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
3
4
7
SB 347 (Beall)
As Amended April 1, 2013
Hearing date: April 2, 2013
Welfare and Institutions Code
AA:mc
JUVENILE JUSTICE:
YOUTH CENTER AND YOUTH SHELTER BOND ACT OF 1988
HISTORY
Source: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Prior Legislation:
Proposition 86 - County Correctional Facility Capital
Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond Act of 1988, November 1988
SB 1664 (Presley) - Ch. 264, Stats. 1988
AB 2737 (M. Waters) - Ch. 1535, Stats. 1988
Support: Housing Trust of Santa Clara County; Bill Wilson
Center; California Council of Community Mental Health
Agencies; California Coalition for Youth; California
Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Alliance of
Child and Family Services
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageB
SHOULD CERTAIN FLEXIBILITY BE ALLOWED WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF
FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE YOUTH CENTER AND YOUTH SHELTER BOND ACT
OF 1988?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide, with respect to funds
allocated pursuant to the Youth Center and Youth Shelter Bond
Act of 1988, the following: 1) that funds "initially allocated"
for shelters for abused and neglected children but expended for
shelters for runaway or homeless youth shall not be required to
be repaid to the state; 2) that a county may use any "unexpended
funds" awarded to a shelter for abused and neglected children
for a shelter for runaway or homeless youth, as specified; and
3) that a county which has received a contract for these funds
may use the funds to provide grant awards to private nonprofit
entities for the acquisition, renovation, construction, or
purchase of equipment for a youth center or youth shelter.
Current law establishes the "Youth Center and Youth Shelter Bond
Act of 1988," hereinafter referred to as the "Act." (Welfare
and Institutions Code ("WIC") � 2000.) Funding for the Act
derived from the 1988 County Correctional Facility Capital
Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond Fund created pursuant to
Proposition 86, passed by the voters in November of 1988.
(Penal Code � 4496.10.) (WIC � 2010.)
Current law generally authorizes awards of funds appropriated
under the Act to public or private nonprofit agencies or joint
ventures, or both, for the purpose of acquiring, renovating,
constructing, and purchasing equipment for youth centers or
youth shelters. (WIC � 2011.)
Current law requires that with respect to the allocation of bond
proceeds, funding for youth shelters shall be awarded with at
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageC
least 70 percent to shelters for runaway youth and a maximum of
30 percent to shelters for abused and neglected children, as
specified. (WIC � 2020 (b).)
Current law provides that any money that has been awarded to
shelters for abused or neglected children under this Act, and
not encumbered by July 1, 1992, shall be reallocated according
to a
supplemental process to be developed by the state when the
unspent funds equals $500,000 or more, as specified. (WIC �
2020(b)(2).)
This bill would revise this section to provide that a "county
may use any unexpended funds awarded to a shelter for abused and
neglected children . . . for the purpose of acquiring,
renovating, constructing, or purchasing equipment for a shelter
for runaway or homeless youth. The department shall revise any
contracts as necessary to implement this subdivision."
Current law imposes specified assurances concerning how long
facilities used, constructed or renovated with funds from the
Act must be used for the purposes described in the Act.
(WIC � 2012.)
Current law generally provides that the state is entitled to
"recapture a portion of state funds from the recipient of a
contract if, within 10 years after acquisition, 20 years after
completion of construction, or 3 to 10 years after renovation, .
. . either of the following occurs:
(1) The recipient of a contract ceases to be a public or
nonprofit agency.
(2) The facility is no longer used for youth center or
youth shelter activities.
(b) The amount recovered shall be that proportion
of the current value of the facility equal to the
proportion of state funds contributed to the original
cost. The current value of the facility shall be
determined by an agreement between the owner of the
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageD
facility and the State of California, or by an action
in the court in the
jurisdiction in which the facility is located. (WIC �
2013.)
This bill would provide that, a "county shall not be required to
repay funds that were initially allocated for shelters for
abused and neglected children . . . but were expended for
shelters for runaway or homeless youth . . ." under the Act, as
specified.
This bill would enact a new statutory provision to provide, a
"county that is the recipient of a contract pursuant to this
chapter may use funds received under the contract to provide
grant awards to private nonprofit entities for the acquisition,
renovation, construction, or purchase of equipment for a youth
center or youth shelter."
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 which 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
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageE
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
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 to reduce the state's prison population to
137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part
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, who oppose the state's
motion, argue in part 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 % prisoner
population cap by December 31st of this year.
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unsettled. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
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
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageF
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
SB 347 would allow any county closing a children's
shelter funded through the County Correctional
Facility Capital Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond
Act (Proposition 86 of 1988) to redirect that funding
to local runaway and homeless youth shelters. This
legislation is consistent with current best practices
that support replacing children's shelters with
family-focused, community-based foster care.
Proposition 86 authorized a $500 million bond issue to
provide funds for the construction of county adult and
juvenile correctional facilities. Additionally, the
measure allocated funds to youth centers and shelters.
In 1990, the County of Santa Clara applied for, and
received, $1 million in funding from Proposition 86 to
help fund a new Children's Shelter. More recently,
the County has decided to sell this property. Under
the terms of the grant, the funding must be returned
to the State upon the sale of the property. There is
no known precedent for the reuse of this funding.
(More)
SB 347 would instead allow the County of Santa Clara
to put this funding towards other local uses which
would fulfill the original purpose of the grant, which
was to fund youth shelters. Specifically, the bill
would allow qualified non-profit agencies within the
county to apply for funding to acquire, renovate,
construct or purchase equipment for runaway youth or
homeless youth shelters. Under this legislation, if
the other county which received funding - the County
of San Diego - were to close its shelter, they would
also be able to redirect their funding.
2. What This Bill Would Do
As explained above, this bill would give counties which received
funds under the 1988 Youth Center and Youth Shelter Bond Act
some flexibility for reusing those funds or assets derived from
those funds. Specifically, this bill would do the following:
Allow a county to avoid repayment provisions in current
law<1> where the funds were initially allocated for
shelters for abused and neglected children but were
expended for shelters for runaway or homeless youth;
Allow a county to use any unexpended funds awarded to a
shelter for abused and neglected children for the purpose
of acquiring, renovating, constructing, or purchasing
equipment for a shelter for runaway or homeless youth; and
Allow a county to use funds to provide grant awards to
private nonprofit entities for the acquisition, renovation,
construction, or purchase of equipment for a youth shelter.
In its letter of support, the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors explain that they recently decided to sell property
for which they received $1 million in bond funding from
---------------------------
<1> Current law provides that the state is entitled to recapture
a portion of state funds if, within 10 years after acquisition,
20 years after completion of construction, or 3 to 10 years
after renovation, either 1) the recipient ceases to be a public
or nonprofit agency; or 2) the facility is no longer used for
youth center or youth shelter activities. (WIC � 2013(a).)
(More)
SB 347 (Beall)
PageH
Proposition 86 for a new children's shelter. Rather than
returning funding to the state upon the sale of the property,
Santa Clara would like to put the sale proceeds "towards other
local uses that would fulfill the original purposes of the grant
- to fund youth shelters."
Because current statute appears to entitle the state to
recapture a portion of the funds allocated to Santa Clara if it
sells the property described above, members may wish to discuss
the fiscal aspects of this bill. However, as explained below,
the flexibility this bill proposes does not appear to go beyond
the original intent of the Initiative passed by the voters in
1988.
3. Background; The 1988 Initiative Authority and This Bill
In 1988 the voters passed Proposition 86, the County
Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure and Youth Facility
Bond Act of 1988. That measure authorized the state to sell
$500 million in general obligation bonds to raise money for
county correctional facilities, county juvenile facilities,
youth centers and youth shelters, allocated as follows:
$410 million for county correctional facilities;
$65 million for county juvenile facilities; and
$25 million for youth centers or youth shelters.
Of the $25 million for youth centers or shelters, the initiative
required that $15 million be available for youth centers, and
$10 million for youth shelters, to be distributed by the
Department of the Youth Authority (now, the Division of Juvenile
Justice). This bill would allow funds (or derivative proceeds)
allocated or awarded for shelters for abused and neglected
children to be shifted without, essentially, penalty, to
SB 347 (Beall)
PageI
shelters for runaway or homeless youth.
***************