BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1064 Hearing Date: April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hancock |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 16, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|ML |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Sexually Exploited Minors
HISTORY
Source: Alameda County District Attorney; McGeorge Legislative
and Public Policy Clinic; State Coalition of Probation
Organizations
Prior Legislation:AB 799 (Swanson) - Ch. 51, Stats. 2011
SB 1279 (Pavley) - Ch. 116, Stats. 2010
AB 499 (Swanson) - Ch. 359, Stats. 2008
Support: Association of Deputy District Attorneys; Association
of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; California District
Attorneys Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; California State Association of Counties;
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association;
Fraternal Order of Police, Northern California; Kern
County Probation Officers Association; L.A. County
Deputy Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685;
Long Beach Police Officers Association; Madera
Probation Peace Officers Association; National
Association of Social Workers, California Chapter;
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association;
Sacramento County Probation Association; Sacramento
Police Officers Association; San Diego Police Officers
Association; San Joaquin County Probation Officers
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageB
of?
Association; Santa Clara County Probation Peace
Officers' Union; Stanislaus County Deputy Probation
Officers Association; University of the Pacific
McGeorge School of Law; Ventura County Professional
Peace Officers' Association
Opposition: Unknown
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand the existing,
discretionary "commercially sexually exploited minor" program in
Alameda County to make it statewide, to eliminate the sunset in
those provisions, and make additional changes as specified.
Existing law authorizes Alameda County, dependent on local
funding, to create a pilot project to develop a model that will
address the needs and effective treatment of sexually exploited
minors until January 1, 2017, and the county's District Attorney
to submit a report by April 1, 2016 to determine whether the
program should be extended to additional counties. (Welfare and
Institutions Code §§ 18259.1, 18259.5.)
Existing law authorizes a similar program in Los Angeles County
and its District Attorney to submit a report by April 1, 2016
determining whether the program should be extended to additional
counties. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 18259.7.)
This bill will authorize the expansion of the Alameda program to
apply statewide.
This bill will expand the definition of commercial sexual
exploitation of children to include minors found to be dependent
of the juvenile court because he or she is a commercially
sexually exploited child or was arrested for engaging in
prostitution. The commercial sexual exploitation of children is
currently defined as criminal practices that demean, degrade and
threaten the physical and psycho-social integrity of
children.<1>
This bill repeals the January 1, 2017 sunset for the Alameda
---------------------------
<1> http://www.heatwatch.org/human_trafficking/about_csec
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageC
of?
program and removes the authority for the county's district
attorney to publish a report by April 1, 2016 that would have
assessed whether the program should be extended to additional
counties.
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
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
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageD
of?
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
1. Need for The Bill
According to the author:
According to UNICEF, every 2 minutes a child is groomed for
sexual exploitation. The California Children's Welfare Council
reports that at least 100,000 children are commercially
sexually exploited in the United States every year, with
another 300,000 children identified as being at risk for
exploitation. Despite current national, state, and local
efforts, California faces a rapid increase in the number of
children being sexually exploited, especially in the form of
prostitution and child pornography. According to data
collected by the FBI, more than 3,000 juveniles were arrested
for prostitution in California between 2006 and 2012.
SB 1064 seeks to respond to the specialized needs of
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageE
of?
commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) in a way that
focuses on victimization rather than criminalization.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, three of the
nation's thirteen High Intensity Child Prostitution areas, as
identified by the FBI, are located in California: the San
Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego metropolitan areas.
Despite the shift in treating CSEC as victims, rather than
offenders, there were 174 prostitution-related arrests of
children, some as young as 12 years old, in California in
2014.
In response to California's growing CSEC problem, Alameda
County established a pilot project, H.E.A.T. Watch, authorized
under AB 499 (Swanson 2008) to divert sexually exploited youth
away from incarceration and into much needed support services.
The program is highly acclaimed, and has garnered national
awards for its comprehensive response to the unique needs of
CSEC victims.
Moreover, Alameda County created the Young Women's Saturday
Program, a weekly program that provides advocacy, case
management, and life skills training to CSEC victims to
restore and support their well-being, empower them to recover,
and ensure that they are ready to lead a productive life free
from exploitation.
The pilot project enabled the Alameda County District
Attorney's Office to leverage existing resources and convene
county agencies, such as law enforcement, probation, social
services, public defenders, and CSEC-specific community based
organizations, to create an effective local response to the
commercial sex trafficking of children.
Existing law, until January 1, 2017, authorizes the Counties
of Alameda and Los Angeles to create a pilot project,
contingent upon local funding, for the purpose of developing a
multi-disciplinary model to address the needs and effective
treatment of commercially sexually exploited minors who have
been arrested or detained by local law enforcement.
2. Effect of Legislation
The bill expands the operation of Alameda County's program
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageF
of?
statewide to all 58 counties, but the extension is contingent
upon local funding and whether the county is willing to opt in.
The bill also expands the definition of the commercial sexual
exploitation of children to include minors who are dependents of
the juvenile court because he or she is a commercially sexually
exploited child or was arrested for engaging in prostitution. SB
1064 eliminates the sunset of the Alameda County pilot program
from January 1, 2017.
Under the program, counties may establish a project to divert
commercially sexually exploited minors from incarceration into
support services. The bill also permits counties to plan,
create, and implement the tools necessary to identify, treat,
and rehabilitate commercially and sexually exploited children.
The program in Alameda County currently works to assess and
identify minors who are arrested or detailed by law enforcement
and may be victims of commercial sexual exploitation. It serves
as a diversion program consisting of best practices to address
the needs and services of these youth.
3. Support
According to one of the sponsors of this legislation, the State
Coalition of Probation Organizations states:
SB 1064 would allow every county in the state to voluntarily
develop a comprehensive and multidisciplinary plan to address
the needs of, and provide effective treatment to, CSEC
victims.
Pursuant to Section 18259 of the Welfare and Institution code,
the District Attorney of Alameda County created and
successfully implemented its Human Exploitation and
Trafficking "HEAT" Watch to provide a comprehensive and
collaborative response to human trafficking. SB 1064 removes
the sunset on the original enabling legislation, and allows
other counties to utilize similar approaches. It is critical
for all counties to create these plans to help assist these
young victims of these incomprehensible crimes.
This bill will also expand the definition of "CSEC" to minors
found to be "dependent of the juvenile court" as CSEC victims,
as well as minors arrested for engaging in prostitution. This
SB 1064 (Hancock ) PageG
of?
approach will allow these victims the ability to receive the
necessary services to help them break out of prostitution and
human trafficking.
4. Los Angeles Program
Senate Bill 1279 (Pavley, 2010) enacted a program similar to
that of Alameda County in Los Angeles County, and also
authorized the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to
publish a report by April 1, 2016 that will assessed whether the
program should be extended to additional counties in California.
This bill does not amend those provisions. The author may wish
to consider whether the provision should be repealed since the
bill would extend the Alameda program statewide.
-- END -