BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 347 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES Mark Stone, Chair SB 347 (Beall) - As Amended: May 7, 2013 SENATE VOTE : 39-0 SUBJECT : Youth Center and Youth Shelter Bond Act of 1988 SUMMARY : Amends the Youth Center and Youth Shelter Bond Act of 1988 (Act) to allow counties awarded funds to re-purpose funds for future youth shelters. Specifically, this bill : 1)Revises the Act to permit a county to repurpose unexpended bond funds initially awarded for the construction of shelters for abused and neglected children and use those funds for shelters for runaway or homeless youth. 2)Exempts counties from repaying bond funds if the money was initially allocated for shelters for abused and neglected children and later used for shelters for runaway or homeless youth. 3)Permits counties to use funds awarded under the Act to provide grant awards to private nonprofit entities for the acquisition, renovation, construction, or purchase of equipment for a youth shelter. EXISTING LAW 1)Establishes the Act funded by the 1988 County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure and Youth Facility Bond Fund created pursuant to Proposition 86, as passed by voters in November 1998. (WIC 2010) 2)Permits the Director of the Department of the Youth Authority, now known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to award funds 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) 3)Requires recipients of funding to assure that the youth center SB 347 Page 2 or youth shelter will be used for at least ten years, or potentially more, from the date of acquisition, depending on award amount, as specified. (WIC 2012) 4)Requires the state to recapture a portion of bond funds from the recipient if, within 10 years after acquisition, 20 years after completion of construction, or 3 to 10 years after renovation, either of the following occur: a) The recipient of a contract ceases to be a public or nonprofit agency; or b) The facility is no longer used for youth center or youth shelter activities. (WIC 2013) 5)Requires the amount to be recovered to be proportional to the current value of the facility equal to the proportion of state funds contributed to the original cost, upon determination and agreement between the facility owner and the state or a court of jurisdiction, as specified. (WIC 2013) 6)Requires youth shelters and youth centers to be funded as separate programs with 70% of funding allocated for shelters for runaway youths and 30% for shelters for abused and neglected children. (WIC 2020) 7)Limits grants to no more than $1 million. (WIC 2021) FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)Near-term loss of revenue of at least $1 million (General Fund) from the recent sale proceeds of property in Santa Clara County subject to repayment provisions under current law. The actual repayment amount, which has yet to be determined, would be the proportion of the current value of the property equal to the proportional share of state funds contributed to the original cost of the project. 2)Potential future loss of revenue of at least $1 million (General Fund) for funds awarded to San Diego County should the county violate its contract obligations prior to September 2014. SB 347 Page 3 COMMENTS : In the 1980s and into the 1990s, California voters considered a number of state obligation bonds to fund the construction or renovation of county and state operated correctional facilities to address issues related to overcrowding. The number of bonds was fairly substantial, totaling over $4 billion in general obligation bonds approved over a nine year period. Of the bonds adopted, only Proposition 86 in 1988 provided funding for the development or renovation of youth shelters and centers. Recognizing the need to provide alternative and preventative services for youth who were at-risk of becoming involved with the juvenile justice system, $25 million was allocated for youth centers and shelters. Repurposing of funds : Nearly 15 years has passed since the adoption of Proposition 86 in 1988, and only a handful of counties have been able to benefit from the limited amount of funds made available through this bond act. Recognizing that many youth shelters and centers are operated by local nonprofit agencies on minimal budgets that rely on philanthropic donations, grants, and volunteers, removing a needed resource for services to at-risk, homeless, or runaway youth could have a detrimental effect. Understanding the supply and demand for homeless youth services : Established by the California Research Bureau (CRB) in 2006, in collaboration with the Council on Youth Relations (CYR), the Homeless Youth Project (HYP) is a multi-year research and policy initiative tasked with highlighting and raising awareness about the homeless youth population and its challenges, and presenting solutions to help address California's homeless youth population. According to the HYP, based on national survey estimates and California's youth population, it is estimated that there are 200,000 youth under the age of 18 and potentially thousands of persons aged 18-24 who are homeless. While this is an approximation of the number of homeless youth in California, the number is likely to be greater given the challenges involved in the identification of homeless youth. For purpose of this population, "homeless youth" typically describes minors under the age of 18, and 18 to 24-year-olds, who are economically or SB 347 Page 4 emotionally detached from their families and have an unstable and inadequate living environment, or are periodically or chronically homeless. The causes of youth homelessness are varied and complex. They range from runaway youth to emancipated foster youth to disengaged youth due to the lack of an adult figure in their life or a lack of access to appropriate services. Due to their unique circumstances, research has shown that homeless youth are at a greater risk of physical and sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, alcohol and drug abuse, mental health disabilities, and death. Additionally, the social, emotional, medical, economic and personal challenges homeless youth face, when coupled with the lack of effective, coordinated services to help them find and keep stable housing and reach self-sufficiency, can lead to ongoing and chronic cycles of homelessness throughout their lifetime. In a 2010 survey of local, state and federal programs, the HYP was able to identify 53 programs that offered just over 1,000 beds for homeless youth throughout the state. Given that the current estimate of homeless youth amounts to more than 200,000 individuals, this demonstrates a significant gap between the size of California's homeless youth population and the number of programs and services available to meet their needs. Need for the bill : According to the author: 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. Writing as sponsors of the measure, the County of Santa Clara states: SB 347 Page 5 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. SB 347 would instead allow the County of Santa Clara to put this funding towards other local uses that 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 that received funding - the County of San Diego - were to close its shelter, it would also be able to redirect its funding. Related Legislation AB 346 (Stone) - 2013 This measure would provide the California Department of Social Services the authority to license runaway and homeless youth shelters. It is currently on the Governor's desk. AB 1283 (Bonilla) - 2013 This measure would require the state advisory group established pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5601 et seq.) to study the feasibility of the establishment a website to list and provide references to homeless youth services. It is currently in the Assembly Human Services Committee and is a two-year bill. SB 177 (Liu) - 2013 This measure would establish the Homeless Youth Education Act. It is currently in the Senate Education Committee. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Bill Wilson Center California Alliance of Child and Family Services California Attorneys for Criminal Justice SB 347 Page 6 California Coalition for Youth (CCY) EMQ Families First Housing California Mental Health America of California (MHAC) Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (Sponsor) The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089