BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 556 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |De León |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JM |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Victims of Crime: Indemnification: Applications
HISTORY
Source: Californian's for Safety and Justice
Prior Legislation: AB 2685 (Cooley) -
Ch. 508, Stats. 2014
AB 2809 (Leno) - Ch. 587, Stats. 2008
AB 2869 (Leno) - Ch. 582, Stats. 2006
AB 2413 (Spitzer) - Ch. 571, Stats. 2006
AB 105 (Cohn) - Ch. 539, Stats. 2006
SB 972 (Poochigian) - Ch. 238, Stats. 2005
SB 631 (McPherson) - Ch. 223, Stats. 2004
SB 1423 (Chesbro) - Ch. 1141, Stats. 2002
AB 2898 (Bowler) - Ch. 1077, Stats. 1996
Support: Unknown
Opposition: None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the victims compensation
and Government Claims Board (the "board") to 1) annually post on
its website progress and current average time of processing
SB 556 (De León ) Page
2 of ?
applications, the number of incomplete applications received and
the number of applications approved and denied; and 2) define
"time processing applications" as the period of time that begins
with the date the board receives an application and ends when a
decision to approve or deny the application has been made and
notice sent to the applicant.
Existing law establishes the Victims Compensation and Government
Claims Board (VCGCB or board) to operate the California Victim
Compensation Program (CalVCP). (Gov. Code
§§ 13950 et. seq.)
Existing law provides than an application for compensation shall
be filed with VCGCB in the manner determined by the board.
(Gov. Code § 13952, subd.(a).)
Existing law provides that the board shall approve or deny
applications within an average of 90 calendar days and no later
than 180 from "of acceptance" of the application by the board or
victim center.
The board shall report quarterly to the Legislature
until it has met the time requirements for two consecutive
quarters.
If the board does not approve or deny a claim within
"180 days of the date it is accepted," the board advises
the applicant in writing of the reasons for the failure to
rule on the application. (Gov. Code § 13958.)
This bill requires the board to annually post on its website the
following:
Progress and current average time of processing
applications;
The number of incomplete applications received; and
The number of approved and denied applications.
This bill defines "time processing applications" as the period
of time that begins with the date the board receives and
application and ends when a decision to approve or deny the
application has been made and notice sent to the applicant.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
SB 556 (De León ) Page
3 of ?
For the past eight 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 February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 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).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now 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
SB 556 (De León ) Page
4 of ?
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:
Through the California Victim Compensation Program
(CalVCP), California has been helping victims by
covering the cost of bills and expenses resulting from
certain violent crimes. Many times, these expenses
include medical treatment, mental health services, and
lost income. A person seeking assistance must first
submit an application to the program to determine
eligibility. For various reasons, however, some
applications get held up in the process for extended
lengths of time, leaving many eligible victims stuck
with paying bills out of pocket or otherwise unable to
receive treatment or services.
To curb delays, starting in 2003 the Legislature
required that CalVCP approve or deny applications
within an average of 90 day, but no later than 180
days, and required the program to report back to the
Legislature whenever the 90-day-average standard was
not being met. In 2004, the board overseeing CalVCP
changed the method of calculating the processing time
by starting the period only when it accepts a
completed application and not including the length of
time an application was submitted as incomplete. The
current method used by CalVCP is not a true reflection
of how long it takes the program to process
applications and may be masking a problem of lengthy
SB 556 (De León ) Page
5 of ?
processing times that hinders crime victims in their
efforts in rehabilitation and moving on with their
lives.
2.Purpose and History of the Victims of Crime Program (VCP)
The victims' compensation program was created in 1965, the first
such program in the country. VCGCB provides compensation for
victims of violent crime. It reimburses eligible victims for
many crime-related expenses. Funding for the board comes from
restitution fines and penalty assessments paid by criminal
offenders, as well as federal matching funds.
The other core function of the board is to review claims against
the state and request payment of claims by the Legislature in
annual legislation. A person must present a claim for damages
against the state to the board before filing a lawsuit.
3.Audit of the VCP
The Bureau of State Audit (BSA) report in 2008 included the
following highlights:
From fiscal years 2001-02 through 2004-05, program
compensation payments decreased from $123.9 million to
$61.6 million - a 50 percent decline. Despite the
significant decline in payments, the costs to support the
program increased.
Administrative costs make up a significant portion of
the Restitution Fund disbursements - ranging from 26
percent to 42 percent annually.
The program did not always process applications and
bills as promptly or efficiently as it could have. Board
staff took longer than 180 days to process applications in
two instances out of 49, and longer than 90 days to pay
bills for 23 of 77 paid bills.
The board did not adequately investigate alternative
sources of funding for victim reimbursement, such as
insurance and public aid.
The program's numerous problems with the transition to a
SB 556 (De León ) Page
6 of ?
new application and bill processing system led to a
reported increase in complaints regarding delays in
processing applications and bills.
Some payments in CaRES appeared to be erroneous.
Although board staff provided explanations for the
erroneous payments, the fact that they were unaware of
these items indicated an absence of controls that would
prevent erroneous payments.
The board lacks the necessary system documentation for
CaRES.
There are no benchmarks, performance measures, or formal
written procedures for workload management.
In 2010, BSA found that the program had partially corrected five
of the problems noted in the audit and corrected five others.
The BSA urged the board to continue correcting the problems
noted in the report. For example:
The board reduced administrative costs, but processing
times for claims had increased.
The board increased collections, but it had not
determined whether outreach programs had been successful
and satisfaction with the program had increased.
The board implemented better training program for
employees who examined claims submitted by crime victims.
The board developed an inventory monitoring system and
set performance benchmarks. The monitoring should improve
identification and understanding of eligibility
requirements.
Board training does include an emphasis on alternative
funding sources.
The board did complete a chapter on appeals of denials
in its manual.
The board did improve its use of the CaRES computer
system. However, claims were still more quickly processed
SB 556 (De León ) Page
7 of ?
in the local agencies with which the board contracts.
It appears that the BSA has not issued a progress report or
update on the program since 2010.
1.Legislative Analyst's Report
As noted in the author's statement, the Legislative Analyst
issued a report on the board. LAO did recommend major changes
to the entire program. At this point, a bill has not been
introduced to implement the LAO recommendations. It does appear
that changes made in this bill to the existing operation of the
program could be integrated into any reorganization of the board
and its functions.
-- END -