BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2084
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2084 (Karnette) - As Amended: March 21, 2006
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6 -
3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill repeals the Domestic Violence Centers Act and replaces
it with the Domestic Violence Shelter-Based Program (DVSBP) Act.
In doing so, this bill narrows the purposes for which county
funds generated by marriage license fees can be used.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Removes references to the more broad "domestic violence
centers" and replaces them with "domestic violence
shelter-based programs."
2)Requires that funding be used only for domestic violence
shelter-based programs.
3)Broadens the definition of "domestic violence" to include
"cohabitants," meaning two unrelated persons living together
for a substantial period of time resulting in some permanency
of relationship.
4)Requires a domestic violence shelter-based program that
receives DVSBP funding to comply with the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act.
5)Allows domestic violence shelters unrestricted flexibility in
using the funds for both indirect and direct costs.
6)Requires only general information be provided by a shelter
concerning the number of persons requesting services, the
number of persons served, and the social and economic
characteristics of clients.
AB 2084
Page 2
7)Prohibits the county from requiring a shelter to provide any
information not listed above and prohibits them from requiring
the disclosure of any confidential location of a shelter or
the identity of any resident, employee or volunteer.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)This bill affects the use of money collected in the county
domestic violence programs special funds from marriage license
fees. AB 2084 neither reduces nor expands the amount of
available money in the local funds. However, it narrows the
purposes for which these funds can be used thus causing
counties to either close or find alternate funding for
domestic violence programs that do not meet the narrower
definition.
2)Negligible direct state fiscal impact.
3)Minor, reimbursable county costs to the extent this
legislation requires counties to change current procedures and
practices regarding the collection of information from the
shelters.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author's office is concerned that county
funding set aside for the uses outlined in the Domestic
Violence Centers Act is not being used to fund domestic
violence shelters as originally intended. Despite Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 18294, which requires that programs
that receive funding provide shelter 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, the author's office is concerned that funds are being
diverted away from shelters and used for county domestic
violence programs that do not provide shelter.
This bill limits local flexibility by requiring that funds
generated from marriage license fees designated for treatment
of domestic violence be spent solely on domestic violence
"shelters," rather than the more broadly defined "centers"
potentially allowed under current law.
2)Related Legislation. SB 91 (Presley) enacted the Domestic
Violence Center Act of 1977. This legislation provided funding
from marriage license fees to promote the establishment of
shelters and services for victims of domestic violence.
AB 2084
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081