BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1657
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2005
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 1657 (Evans) - As Amended: April 12, 2005
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill creates a funding source to support local child victim
forensic interviews conducted by local child advocacy centers,
by redistributing proceeds of the State Penalty Fund (SPF) and
redirecting funds from the Drivers Training Penalty Assessment
Fund (DTPAF) (which is funded by the SPF) to the Child Advocacy
Center Fund, as created by this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Major annual GF revenue loss and a redirection of special
funds. In 2005-06, the loss would be $19.7 million as a result
of redirecting a portion of DTPAF revenues to the fund created
by this bill and to two existing funds.
2)This bill redistributes certain statutory State Penalty Fund
allocations as follows:
a) Decreases the amount provided to the DTPAF from 25.70%
to 1%, reducing the fund from $39.4 million to $1.5
million. (A large portion of DTPAF funds are transferred
annually to the GF. In 2005-06, the transfer amount is
budgeted at $19.7 million.)
b) Provides 7.2% to the Child Advocacy Center Fund (created
by this bill). In 2005-06, this amount would be $11
million.
c) Increases the amount provided to the Peace Officers'
Training Fund (POTF) from 23.99% to 33.49%. In 2005-06,
this proposed redirection would increase the POTF from
AB 1657
Page 2
$36.4 million to $51.3 million
d) Increases the amount provided to the Victim-Witness
Assistance Fund from 8.84% to 16.64%. The proposed
redirection would increase the VWF from $13.1 million to
$25.5 million.
SUMMARY, CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill would:
1)Authorize counties to receive grants for interview services
from the Office of Emergency Services (OES) for costs
associated with child victim forensic evidentiary interviews
conducted by child advocacy centers.
2)Specify that OES would determine the grant amounts, in
consultation with an advisory group comprised of prosecutors,
law enforcement, victim's services, pediatric medicine, and
child protective services.
3)Specify that counties may establish child advocacy centers
(CACs) to coordinate the activities of the various agencies
involved in the investigation and prosecution of alleged child
abuse and mitigation of family violence.
4)Specify that to qualify for state funding, each county that
establishes or maintains a CAC must develop an interagency
protocol for the investigation of child abuse and neglect
signed by appropriate persons from the office of the district
attorney, the sheriff's department, local police departments,
child protective services or an equivalent agency
administering child welfare, and public health and medical
examiners.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author's intent is to provide a partial funding
source for existing and prospective CACs, also known as
multidisciplinary interview centers (MDICs). Though there are
about 50 MDICs currently operating around the state, local
budget difficulties threaten to constrain the services these
entities provide.
CACs/MDICs coordinate personnel from agencies investigating
AB 1657
Page 3
child abuse, typically representatives from the district
attorney's office, law enforcement, child protective services,
and medical and mental health professionals. These
representatives provide training on risk assessment, child
abuse, child sexual abuse and rape, as well as training on
legally and age-appropriate interview and investigation
techniques.
The state has never funded CACs/MDICs.
According to the author, "The pressing need for CACs has
prompted local government agencies to join together and share
the funding from their operating budgets, straining the normal
operations those budgets were intended to support. The use of
Driver Training Penalty Assessment Funds (DTPAF) will ease,
but not eliminate, the struggle local governments undergo to
support these vital facilities."
2)Previous Legislation .
a) AB 2294 (Wolk), 2004, would have allowed counties to
establish MDICs and submit claims to the California Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board for costs incurred
by the MDICs associated with child victim forensic
interviews. AB 2294 was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
b) AB 1497 (Negrete-McLeod), 2002-03, was similar to AB
2294 and was vetoed by Gov. Davis.
c) AB 1724 (Gallegos), 1999-2000, would have established
the Child Abuse Multidisciplinary Intervention Account,
funded by the General Fund, to provide support for child
abuse multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary
centers. AB 1724 was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
d) SB 647 (Rainey), 1999-2000, would have established an
account in the General Fund for local child abuse
multidisciplinary teams and centers. SB 647 was held on the
Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081