BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2417 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooley |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 15, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Child Abuse Reporting
HISTORY
Source: California Court Appointed Special Advocates
Association
Prior Legislation:AB 424 (Beth Gaines) Chapter 424, Stats 2015
AB 1979 (Bass) Chapter 382, Stats. 2006
SB 618 (Chesbro) Chapter 934, Stats. 1999
Support: Child Advocates of El Dorado County; California CASA
Association; Children Now
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the Department of
Justice (DOJ) from charging fees to Court Appointed Special
Advocate (CASA) Programs for background checks.
Existing law directs DOJ to maintain an index, referred to as
CACI, of all substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect
AB 2417 (Cooley ) Page
2 of ?
submitted as specified. (Penal Code § 11170 (a)(1) & (a)(3).)
Existing law allows DOJ to disclose information contained in
CACI to multiple identified parties for purposes of child abuse
investigation, licensing, and employment applications for
positions that have interaction with children. (Penal Code §
11170 (b).)
Existing law requires DOJ to remove a person's name from CACI
when it is notified that the due process hearing resulted in a
finding that the listing was based on an unsubstantiated report.
(Penal Code, § 11169 (g).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish
guidelines for CASA programs, as specified. (Welfare &
Institutions Code § 100 et seq.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
5.655.)
Existing law authorizes CASA programs to request fingerprint
background checks. (Pen. Code, § 11170 (b)(5).)
Existing law authorizes DOJ to charge fees sufficient to cover
the cost of conducting fingerprint background checks. (Penal
Code § 11005 (e).)
Existing law prohibits DOJ from charging a fee for fingerprint
background checks for volunteers at child care facilities who
are required to be fingerprinted if funding is provided in the
Budget. (Health & Safety Code, §§ 1596.871 & 1596.8713.)
Existing law requires background checks for child mentors in the
foster care system and prohibits DOJ from charging fees for the
background checks. (Health & Safety Code, §1522.06.)
This bill prohibits DOJ from charging a fee to CASA programs who
submit to DOJ fingerprint images and related information of
employment and volunteer candidates for the purpose of obtaining
information regarding any record of child abuse investigations
contained in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) or state and
federal criminal record data bases.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
AB 2417 (Cooley ) Page
3 of ?
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
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
AB 2417 (Cooley ) Page
4 of ?
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
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) are
citizens sworn in as officers of the court who speak up for
children's needs, while mentoring youth and supporting
successful transitions for children in foster care.
Children with a CASA have better outcomes. They are more
likely to find a safe permanent home, half as likely to
reenter the foster care system, and more likely to succeed
in school. Currently, there are not enough CASAs to advocate
on behalf of the foster children in need of their services.
Pursuant to a policy intended to support mentorship to
foster youth, the DOJ is prohibited from charging fees
to qualifying nonprofit organizations, childcare
facilities and foster youth mentors. CASA programs are
excluded from this benefit, which places a financial
burden on local programs. Due to the financial burden
AB 2417 (Cooley ) Page
5 of ?
background checks present, some CASA programs ask
volunteers to cover the costs of their background check
fees. This financial ask can limit the pool of
potential volunteers and affect services provided to
children in the foster care system.
2. CASA Volunteers
CASA volunteers are deemed as officers of the court for the
purpose of representing juveniles and wards of the court without
other representation. This allows CASA advocates to represent
children in proceedings that affect them. CASA programs recruit
volunteers to serve as advocates for these children, and trains
them in accordance with minimum guidelines set by the Judicial
Council. These guidelines require that CASA advocates and
employees be fingerprinted and run through a CACI background
check to ensure the advocates and employees does not have a
history of child abuse or neglect.
CASA programs are non-profits relying heavily on volunteers.
Currently, CASA programs must pay a fee to DOJ to process the
mandatory background check. In contrast, under existing law,
there is no fee for background checks of child care mentors
serving youths in the foster care system and child care facility
volunteers. This bill would extend the fee prohibition for
background checks to CASA program volunteers and employees.
-- END -