BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1731 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Atkins |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 27, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Human Trafficking: Statewide Interagency Human
Trafficking Task Force
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None
Support: Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs;
California Attorney General; California Statewide Law
Enforcement Association; Crime Victims United of
California; Fraternal Order of Police; Junior Leagues
of California State Public Affairs Committee; Long
Beach Police Officers Association; Los Angeles
Professional Peace Officers Association; Sacramento
County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; San Diego County
District Attorney; State Coalition of Probation
Organizations
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 80 - 0
PURPOSE
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
2 of ?
The purpose of this bill is to create within the Department of
Justice a "Statewide Interagency Human Trafficking Task Force,"
as specified.
Current law provides that the Attorney General is the head of
the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). (Government Code § 12510.)
Current law provides that the "Attorney General has charge, as
attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is
interested," as specified. (Government Code § 12511 et seq.)
This bill would create the "Statewide Interagency Human
Trafficking Task Force" within DOJ, consisting of
representatives from all of the following agencies:
A representative of the Department of Justice shall be
the chair of the task force.
The State Department of Social Services.
The Children and Family Services Division of the State
Department of Social Services.
The Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
The State Department of Public Health.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The State Department of Education.
The Judicial Council.
The California Victim Compensation and Government Claims
Board.
This bill would require the task force to do all of the
following:
Gather statewide data on sex and labor traffickers, sex
buyers, and human trafficking victims, including statistics
on prosecution of offenders as well as services provided to
victims, including commercially sexually exploited
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
3 of ?
children.
Recommend interagency protocols and best practices for
training and outreach to the law enforcement community,
victim service providers, and other state or private sector
employees likely to encounter trafficking, such as
educators and hotel workers.
Evaluate and implement approaches to increase public
awareness about human trafficking and make new
recommendations on these approaches.
This bill would provide that the protocols described above shall
not duplicate the protocols developed by the California Child
Welfare Council, as specified.
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
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
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
4 of ?
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
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
5 of ?
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
AB 22 (Lieber 2005) created California's first
legislatively mandated human trafficking taskforce.
This taskforce issued a 2007 report on the extent of
the human trafficking problem in California and made
various recommendations in the criminal justice system
to address its effect on California communities. The
taskforce dissolved after the release of the report.
Subsequently, when Attorney General Kamala Harris took
office, she created a Human Trafficking Working Group
consisting primarily of law enforcement agencies and
victim advocates from around the state. This working
group also produced a comprehensive report on human
trafficking in California in 2012, and provided many
recommendations for combatting this crime. Many of
these recommendations have been proposed as laws.
However, this working group is no longer functioning.
California remains at the forefront in the fight
against human trafficking and will continue to do so,
as over 20 bills have been introduced to combat human
trafficking since January 2016. Yet, there is not
currently a statewide entity working to coordinate the
efforts of all the relevant state agencies, to collect
multi-faceted human trafficking data from around the
state, or to monitor the effectiveness of the many
human trafficking bills likely to become law this
year. AB 1731 creates such a group with specific
mandates for action.
2.Background: California DOJ 2012 Report
In 2012 the Department of Justice published a report
entitled, "The State of Human Trafficking in California."
That report explained:
In January 2012, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
created a Human Trafficking Work Group to examine the
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
6 of ?
nature and scope of human trafficking in California in
2012; to evaluate California's progress since 2007 in
combating human trafficking; and to identify
challenges and opportunities in protecting and
assisting victims and bringing traffickers to justice.
The Work Group included more than 100 representatives
of state, local and federal law enforcement, state
government agencies, victim service providers,
nonprofit groups, technology companies, and
educational institutions. This report reflects the
Work Group discussions held during three day-long
meetings in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los
Angeles, as well as supplemental research and
investigation by the California Department of Justice.
(http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ht/human-
trafficking-2012.pdf?)
In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice awarded grants
to create six regional task forces in California to combat human
trafficking. In 2009 and 2010, the California Emergency
Management Agency used American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
grant funds to supplement the original six task forces and
establish three new regional task forces.
As part of their work to combat human trafficking, the task
forces provide training to a variety of audiences on how to
identify and respond to the crime. From mid-2010 to mid-2012,
California's task forces provided training to 25,591 law
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, victim service providers,
and other first responders.
(https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/fighting)
The nine regional task forces are:
East Bay Human Trafficking Task Force
Fresno Coalition Against Human Trafficking
Los Angeles Metro Area Task Force on Human Trafficking
North Bay Human Trafficking Task Force
Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
7 of ?
Riverside County Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force
Sacramento Innocence Lost Task Force
San Diego North County Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force
San Jose/South Bay Human Trafficking Task Force.
The regional task forces are comprised of various combinations
of local law enforcement agencies district and non-profits with
expertise on issues involving human trafficking.
3. Background: Multisector and Interagency Initiatives to
Address Trafficking
In 2013, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research
Council prepared a guide for providers of victim services for
minors that had been trafficked. The guide pointed out that
each of the sectors involved in addressing commercial sexual
exploitation and sex trafficking of minors-victim and support
services, health care, education, the legal sector, and the
commercial sector-has specific roles to play. Adequate
responses to trafficking of minors requires collaboration and
coordination among all of these sectors, as well as at all
levels-federal, state, and local. Yet the efforts of
individuals, groups, and organizations in different sectors and
with different areas of expertise tend to be disconnected.
(Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking
of Minors in the United States, A Guide for Providers of Victim
and Support Services, Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council, pp. 26-27.)
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council
recommended the use multisector and interagency initiatives to
address commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of
minors. The guide identified existing task forces on the
federal level (Trafficking Victims Protection Act (2013)), as
effective mechanisms to coordinate responses between agencies.
(Confronting Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Sex Trafficking
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
8 of ?
of Minors in the United States, A Guide for Providers of Victim
and Support Services, Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council, p.27.)
4.Background: Alameda and Los Angeles Pilot Projects
The Legislature has authorized pilot programs in Alameda
and Los Angeles Counties to create, implement, and deliver
standardized training curricula that would provide a
protocol for law enforcement and social services to assess
and recognize sexually exploited minors within the juvenile
justice system.
The Alameda County pilot project is part of a larger
project called "H.E.A.T (Human Exploitation and
Trafficking) Watch." H.E.A.T Watch is a multidisciplinary,
multisystem program that brings together individuals and
agencies from law enforcement, health care, advocacy,
victim and support services, the courts, probation
agencies, the commercial sector, and the community to (1)
ensure the safety of victims and survivors and (2) pursue
accountability for exploiters and traffickers. Strategies
employed by H.E.A.T. Watch includes, among others,
stimulating community engagement, coordinating training and
information sharing, and coordinating the delivery of
victim and support services.
The program uses a multisector approach to coordinate the
delivery of support services. For example,
multidisciplinary case review (modeled on the
multidisciplinary team approach) is used to create
emergency and long-term safety plans. Referrals for case
review are made by law enforcement, prosecutors, probation
officials, and social service organizations that have come
into contact with these youth. This approach enables
members of the multidisciplinary team to share confidential
information with agencies that can assist youth in need of
services and support. (Confronting Commercial Sexual
Exploitation and Sex Trafficking of Minors in the United
States, A Guide for Providers of Victim and Support
Services. Institute of Medicine and National Research
Council, Pp. 30-31.)
In a March 23, 2011 progress report on the AB 499 Diversion
AB 1731 (Atkins ) Page
9 of ?
Program, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office
(ACDAO) stated: "As a result of the passage of AB 499, the
ACDAO has been able to develop a comprehensive system
response that directs Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children (CSEC) away from the criminal justice system and
into programs offering specialized services essential for
the stabilization, safety, and recovery of these vulnerable
children. . . .
The Legislature authorized the same pilot project for Los
Angeles County. (SB 1279 (Pavley), Chapter 116, Statutes of
2010.) The sunsets for these programs would be eliminated
under SB 1064 (Hancock), currently pending in the Assembly.
-- END -