BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1563 Hearing Date: May 10, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Rodriguez |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 4, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Victim's Compensation: Claims: Appeal
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 1140 (Bonta) - Ch. 569 Stats. of 2015
AB 1629 (Bonta) - Ch. 535 Stats. of 2014
AB 2809 (Leno) - Ch. 587, Stats. of 2008
AB 2869 (Leno) - Ch. 582, Stats. of 2006
AB 2729 (Wesson) -Vetoed 2002
AB 606 (Jackson) - Ch. 584, Stats. of 1999
Support: California Catholic Conference; Crime Victims United
of California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to: 1) direct the Victims
Compensation and Government Claims Board (board) to consider a
request for reconsideration of the denial of a claim within six
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
2 of ?
months of receipt of the appeal unless the request contains
insufficient information for the board to make a decision; and
2) require the board to notify a claimant within six months that
the request or appeal includes insufficient information.
Existing law establishes the board to operate the California
Victim's Compensation Program (CalVCP). (Gov. Code, § 13950 et.
seq.)
Existing law provides than an application for compensation shall
be filed with the board 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 form 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 board 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,
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
3 of ?
the derivative victim is a resident of California, or the
resident of any 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 of not less than two years in a relationship
substantially similar to a previously listed
relationship;
o Another family member of the victim including,
but not limited to, the victim's fiancé or fiancée,
and who witnessed the crime; or
o 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 authorizes the board to reimburse for pecuniary
loss for specified types of losses, including medical expenses,
mental-health counseling, loss of income or loss of support, and
installing or increasing residential security. (Gov. Code, §
13957.)
Existing law eequires the board to approve or deny applications,
based on recommendations by the board staff, within an average
of 90 calendar days and no later than 180 calendar days of
acceptance by the board. (Gov. Code, § 13958, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the board to grant a hearing to an
applicant who contests a staff recommendation to deny
compensation in whole or in part. (Gov. Code, § 13959, subd.
(a).)
Existing law states that at such a hearing, the person seeking
compensation shall have the burden of establishing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the elements for eligibility.
(Gov. Code, § 13959, subd. (c).)
Existing law establishes protocols for reconsideration hearings,
and specifies that they are informal and not subject technical
rules of evidence. (Gov. Code, § 13959, subd. (e).)
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
4 of ?
Existing law equires the board's post-hearing decision to be in
writing. A copy of the decision must be personally delivered to
the applicant or his or her representative, or sent by mail.
(Gov. Code, § 13959, subd. (h).)
Existing law allows the board to order a reconsideration of all
or part of a decision on written request of the applicant. The
board may not grant more than one request for reconsideration
with respect to any one decision on an application for
compensation. (Gov. Code, § 13959, subd. (i).)
Existing law prohibits the board from considering any request
for reconsideration if the request is filed with the board more
than 30 calendar days after the personal delivery or 60 calendar
days after the mailing of the original decision. (Gov. Code, §
13959, subd. (i).)
Existing law permits judicial review of a final decision of the
board by filing a petition for writ of mandate. (Gov. Code, §
13960.)
This bill requires the board to evaluate an application for
reconsideration of compensation within six months of the date
the board receives the application, unless it determines that
there was insufficient information to make a decision.
This bill provides that if the board determines that there was
insufficient information to make a decision, it shall notify the
applicant in writing within six months of the date the
application was received.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
5 of ?
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
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.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the
"durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
6 of ?
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Victims of crime often suffer long-term after a
criminal offense has taken place, and without adequate
treatment or services, are likely to become
re-victimized. In the past, the Victim's Compensation
Program has demonstrated a lack of management of
appeals cases, leaving many victims waiting for
answers and footing the bill for services that could
have been compensated earlier and more efficiently. AB
1563 seeks to address this problem by making sure the
Board makes a decision on an appeal within six months
of receiving an application and informing an applicant
if anything is missing from their application. This
measure will ensure that victim applicants are not
waiting indefinitely for a response, and have a fair
opportunity to submit information that would complete
their applications. This will allow victims to
successfully move on with their lives with the
treatment and services they need.
2.Background
The victims' compensation program was created in 1965, the first
such program in the country. The program provides compensation
for victims of violent crime. It reimburses eligible victims
for many crime-related expenses, such as medical treatment,
mental health services, funeral expenses, home security, and
relocation services. Funding for the board comes from
restitution fines and penalty assessments paid by criminal
offenders, as well as federal matching funds. (See the board's
Website: .)
The other core function of the board is to review claims against
the state and request payment of claims by the Legislature in
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
7 of ?
annual legislation. A person must present a claim for damages
against the state to the board before filing a lawsuit.
3.Appeal of Board Decision
The board explains the appeals process as follows: "An
applicant has a right to file an appeal if a claim is
recommended for denial, or if any part of the claim is
recommended for denial. An appeal must be filed within 45 days
of the date the Board mailed the notice to deny the claim and/or
expense. In some cases, if new information is provided, the
denial may be reconsidered immediately. Otherwise, most appeals
are scheduled for a hearing before a Hearing Officer. This
hearing will give the applicant the opportunity to present
information supporting the claim. Hearings are not held to
contest the denial of an emergency award.
"If the applicant does not agree with the outcome of the Board's
final decision, a Petition for a Writ of Mandate may be filed in
the Superior Court." (See board Website
http://vcgcb.ca.gov/victims/faq/lawsandinfo.aspx#Appeal>.)
Existing law does not state a timeframe or deadline to decide an
appeal by an applicant. This bill would establish a six-month
deadline for which to process an appeal, except in cases where
the board determines that there is insufficient information to
resolve the matter. As to those cases, this bill requires the
board to provide written notice to the applicant within six
months of the date the appeal was received.
The board has informed this committee that several years ago
there was a backlog of about 2,000 appeals. The board enacted
changes to address the backlog. Two analysts were assigned to
triage the appeals to resolve any that could be handled
expeditiously and without a hearing. Additionally, for one
month several years ago all hearing attorneys were assigned to
handle appeals. These actions dropped the backlog from 2,000 to
less than 500 cases. In the recent past, the backlog has run
between 240-280 cases. As of January 2016, there is a backlog
of 260 appeals: 221 of these are less than 6 months old, 34 are
less than 9 months old, and 5 are up to a year old. The only
AB 1563 (Rodriguez ) Page
8 of ?
cases that are not handled within the first six months are
complex ones, such as those which may involve fraud, or those
which are waiting for documents from a third party, such as a
provider or police department.
Given the information provided by the board, it should generally
be able to comply with the deadlines imposed by this bill. In
fact, it appears the board is already doing so.
-- END -