BILL ANALYSIS �
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