BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 941 (Mitchell) - Juveniles ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Version: April 6, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 6 - 1 | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes | | | | |--------------------------------+--------------------------------| | | | |Hearing Date: May 23, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: SB 941 would repeal the authority of local agencies to assess and collect specified fees against families of persons under 21 years of age who have been detained and/or placed on probation and who are not under the jurisdiction of criminal court. This bill would specify that, on and after January 1, 2017, the balance of any court-ordered costs imposed pursuant to the liabilities eliminated in this bill is unenforceable and uncollectable. Fiscal Impact: County fee revenue : Potential loss of ongoing revenue for counties that currently assess and collect fees, potentially in excess of $5 million to $10 million (Local Funds) annually. Unknown amount of additional lost revenue from the outstanding balance of court-ordered costs as of January 1, 2017 (the outstanding balance statewide is unknown, however, it is estimated to exceed $100 million, given the total amount of SB 941 (Mitchell) PageA of? outstanding debt from juvenile fees for just four counties totals nearly $45 million). The net fee revenue loss to counties, accounting for the amount potentially collectible and deducting the administrative costs to collect, is unknown. Repeal of local authority to charge fees : Potential costs in the tens of millions of dollars (General Fund) annually, for administrative and operational costs related to local detention, probation supervision, electronic monitoring, drug testing, work furlough and home detention programs, support/maintenance of wards and dependents, and transportation of persons under age 21. Although three counties currently opt not to charge specified fees (Alameda, Los Angeles, and San Francisco<1>), the total costs (and not necessarily the amount of fees collected) incurred by all counties for these activities could potentially be subject to reimbursement by the state should the Commission on State Mandates determine the provisions of this bill constitute a state-mandated program on local agencies. Staff notes certain local agency costs could potentially require a subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30* in lieu of mandate reimbursement. County administrative workload : Ongoing significant reduction in administrative workload related to "ability to pay" determinations and the collection of assessed fees over time. To the extent much of the outstanding debt has been referred to the Franchise Tax Board's court-ordered debt and tax intercept programs, however, the fee collection workload relief to counties would be somewhat mitigated. Courts : Ongoing loss of future revenue potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (General Fund**) statewide due to the inability to assess and collect fees for court-appointed counsel for persons under the age of 21. Revenue collected annually for both adults and minors exceeds $1.1 million annually, however, only a portion of these revenues are attributable to persons under the age of 21. CalWORKs Family Stabilization Program : Potential increase in CalWORKs services costs (General Fund) for crisis services to families in which a child has been held in temporary custody in a law enforcement facility, as specified. *Proposition 30 : Exempts the State from mandate reimbursement --------------------------- <1> Alameda County placed a moratorium on the assessment and collection of fees in March 2016; Los Angeles County placed a moratorium on the assessment of fees in 2009. San Francisco County has not charged fees to date for these activities. SB 941 (Mitchell) PageB of? for realigned responsibilities for "public safety services" including the managing of local jails and the provision of services and supervision of juvenile and adult offenders. However, legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for public safety services apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. The provisions of Proposition 30 have not been interpreted through the formal court process to date, however, to the extent certain local agency costs resulting from this measure are determined to be applicable under the provisions of Proposition 30, local agencies would not be obligated to provide the level of service required by the bill above the level for which funding is provided by the State. **Trial Court Trust Fund Background: Existing law generally provides the authority for county boards of supervisors to authorize courts to order the families of youth who have been detained and/or placed on probation to pay specified fees for the youth's detention, probation supervision, electronic monitoring, drug testing, transportation, and counsel. Existing law authorizes sheriffs, probation officers, and directors of county departments of corrections to offer home detention programs in lieu of confinement in county jail or other county correctional facilities. Additionally, counties, upon approval by the board of supervisors, may establish work furlough, electronic home detention, or parole programs. For these programs, existing law authorizes the board of supervisors to prescribe a program administrative fee and application fee to participants. Under existing law, a board of supervisors for any county may designate a county officer to make financial evaluations of defendants and other persons liable for reimbursable costs, as specified. Existing law provides that the county financial evaluation officer shall make financial evaluations of parental liability for reimbursements and other court-ordered costs relating to the reasonable costs of support of a minor while the SB 941 (Mitchell) PageC of? minor is placed, or detained in, or committed to, any institution, as a result of temporary detention or a delinquency court order, legal services, probation supervision, and costs for records sealing, as specified, as directed by the board of supervisors, or as established by the juvenile court. The court order may be enforced as any other civil judgment, including any balance remaining unpaid after jurisdiction of the minor has terminated. The Policy Advocacy Clinic at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law, which has been studying the practice and impact of county assessment of administrative fees against families of youth who have been detained or placed on probation, provided the Senate Committee on Public Safety with the following chart summarizing the fees targeted by this bill in several counties: Proposed Law: This bill would repeal the authority of agencies to assess and collect administrative fees against families of youth who have been detained or placed on probation, are under 21 years of age, and are not under the jurisdiction of criminal court. In summary, this bill: Specifies that, on and after January 1, 2017, the balance of any court-ordered costs imposed pursuant to the liabilities eliminated by this bill "shall be unenforceable and uncollectable, and on January 1, 2018, the portion of the judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated." Specifies for purposes of CalWORKs eligibility, a situation or crisis that is destabilizing the family includes the circumstance when a child in the family has been held in temporary custody in a law enforcement facility. Narrows the scope of existing liability for costs to apply only to legal services rendered to a minor by an SB 941 (Mitchell) PageD of? attorney pursuant to an order of the juvenile court, any cost to the county or the court of legal services rendered directly to the father, mother, or spouse, of the minor or any other person liable for the support of the minor, in a dependency proceeding by an attorney appointed pursuant to an order of the juvenile court, and for persons age 26 and older, the cost to the county and court for any investigation related to the sealing and for the sealing of any juvenile court or arrest records, as specified. Limits the administrative fee local agencies can assess for home detention programs and work furlough programs to adult participants who are over the age of 21 years and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. For persons convicted of an offense involving the unlawful possession, use, sale or other furnishing of any controlled substances, limits the assessment of fees for drug testing to adults over 21 years of age and under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. Deletes all financial liability provisions of WIC § 207.2, which provides that a parent or guardian is liable for the reasonable costs of transporting a minor to a juvenile facility and for the costs of the minor's food, shelter, and care at the juvenile facility when the parent or guardian has actual notice the minor is schedule for release and that the parent or guardian is asked to pick up the minor by a time certain no later than six hours from the time the minor was placed in detention Revises existing provisions of law that authorizes the order for the care and custody of a ward, dependent child, or other minor be paid by the parents/guardian of a ward if the maximum amount established by a county board of supervisors is insufficient to pay the whole expense of support and maintenance, and instead directs that the whole expense of support and maintenance for the child be paid for from the county treasury. SB 941 (Mitchell) PageE of? Additional Statutes Repealed by This Bill WIC § 902 (orders for additional amounts to pay the whole expense of support and maintenance of a ward, dependent child, or other minor person); WIC § 903 (liability for costs of support of the minor while the minor is placed, or detained in, or committed to, any institution or other place, as specified); WIC § 903.15 (liability for registration fee of up to $50 for appointed legal counsel); WIC § 903.2 (liability for probation supervision, home supervision, or electronic supervision); WIC § 903.25 (food, shelter and care costs of juveniles in custody of probation or detained in juvenile facility); WIC § 903.4 (recovery of moneys or incurred costs for support of minors in county institution or other placed program); WIC § 903.45 (financial evaluation of ability to pay; subsequent petition for order to pay); WIC § 903.5 (voluntary placement of minor in out-of-home care); WIC § 903.6 (distribution of collected funds); WIC § 903.7 (deletes the "Foster Children and Parent Training Fund") WIC § 904 (determination of charges by boards of supervisors or courts). Prior Legislation: SB 504 (Lara) Chapter 388/2015 limits certain cost liabilities related to the sealing of juvenile records to persons over the age of 26, as specified, and provides that in considering a petition to seal certain juvenile records, an unfulfilled order of restitution shall not be a bar to sealing, and outstanding restitution fines and court-ordered fees shall SB 941 (Mitchell) PageF of? not be considered when assessing a petitioner's rehabilitation nor be a bar to sealing a record, as specified. Staff Comments: By removing the authority of agencies to charge specified fees to persons under 21 years of age, the provisions of this measure could result in a significant fiscal impact to local agencies as noted in the Fiscal Impact section of this analysis. An informal survey of 28 counties indicated a potential fiscal impact in the millions of dollars to probation departments annually, with the largest potential fiscal loss attributable to the inability to assess fees for detention in juvenile facilities. Additionally, it is anticipated there could be a significant fiscal impact to local agencies as it pertains to the inability to assess application and program administrative fees for home detention and work furlough programs, as these types of alternative custody options are potentially suitable for young adults aged 18-21 who would be impacted by the provisions of this measure. Three counties (Alameda, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) do not currently charge fees for the actual costs of services rendered for supervision, electronic monitoring drug testing, and transportation. However, by prohibiting local agencies from charging fees, now or at any point in the future, to recoup the actual costs for services rendered, this bill could result in General Fund costs should local agencies file claims with the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) and the prohibition on recouping local agency costs are determined to be a reimbursable state mandate by the CSM. Staff notes that the costs of the provisions of this bill notwithstanding, the societal impacts of assessing juvenile administrative fees on families without the ability to pay are significant. As noted in the report, "High Pain, No Gain: How Juvenile Administrative Fees Harm Low-Income Families in Alameda County, California," (Berkeley Law, University of California, Policy Advocacy Clinic, March 2016): Through a series of interviews with youth and their families over the last two years, we have repeatedly heard stories suggesting that juvenile administrative fees impose several significant harms on families without the ability to pay. First, the fees force families to choose between SB 941 (Mitchell) PageG of? paying for necessities and paying the County. Second, the fees strain often already challenging relationships between youth and their parents. And third, the fees incentivize actions that are even more costly and harmful to the family and society. (p. 11) Fee debt causes immediate harm to vulnerable families and strains parent-child relationships. The debt can impact young people as they enter into adulthood by limiting their abilities to secure a job, education and housing. (p. 17) Charging families administrative fees also fails to advance the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile system. The juvenile system is supposed to provide for the protection and safety of youth, preserve family ties and foster family reunification and enable young people to become law-abiding and productive members of their families and communities. (p. 18) -- END --