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 --