BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session
AB 2084 A
Assembly Member Karnette B
As Amended June 22, 2006
Hearing Date: June 27 2006 2
Welfare and Institutions Code 0
GMO;BCP:cjt 8
4
SUBJECT
Domestic Violence Shelter Based Programs
DESCRIPTION
This bill would repeal the Domestic Violence Centers Act,
and, in its place, enact the Domestic Violence
Shelter-Based Programs Act, with much of the same
provisions. Notable changes include requiring all funding
to go to a shelter whose primary function is to administer
domestic violence programs, protecting a victim's
confidential information, and allowing shelters to allocate
funds to direct and indirect shelter services.
BACKGROUND
Enacted in 1977 by SB 91 (Presley), the Domestic Violence
Centers Act provides funding for domestic violence programs
by allocating a portion of marriage license fees to go into
a special fund for those programs. In addition to funding
those programs, that Act made various findings and
declarations, and described the requirements that domestic
violence shelters can meet to get priority in funding.
Three counties, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Solano, and the
City of Berkeley later received additional funds for their
domestic violence shelters through subsequent legislation.
Additional provisions state that domestic violence programs
must provide a 24-hour shelter, a switchboard for crisis
calls, temporary food and facilities, in addition to other
services for the victims of domestic violence.
(more)
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 2
AB 2084 would repeal that Act, and replace it with the
Domestic Violence Shelter-Based Programs Act, which revises
and recasts most of the provisions in that Act. Notably,
AB 2084 would only allow funding of domestic violence
shelters that meet the Act's requirements. No
accommodation is made for those counties, and city, who
have requested supplemental funding.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law , the Domestic Violence Centers Act, makes
various findings and declarations, defines domestic
violence, creates standards for domestic violence
programs, and outlines various funding provisions. [Welf.
& Inst. Code 18290.]
This bill would repeal the Domestic Violence Centers Act,
and instead enact the Domestic Violence Shelter-Based
Programs Act, with similar findings and declarations, and
similar provisions, while changing references within the
Act from "program" to "domestic violence shelter-based
program."
This bill would additionally state the intent of the
Legislature to provide victims of domestic violence with
a safe place, in a confidential location, on a 24-hour
basis, where staff qualify as domestic violence
counselors under Evidence Code 1037.1.
2. Existing law states that agencies and organizations
whose primary function is to administer domestic violence
programs shall have priority for funding. [Welf. & Inst.
Code 18293.]
This bill would require funding to be given to those
agencies and organizations. This bill would state that
the primary purpose of the process to determine
eligibility of a shelter for funding is to ascertain
whether it meets the requirements of the Act. That
process must be expedient and prove a mechanism for
annual recertification.
This bill would provide that funding is for the
unrestricted use of the shelter, and may be used for
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 3
direct and indirect costs.
3. Existing law defines "domestic violence" as abuse
perpetrated by and committed against a family or
household member. [Welf & Inst. Code 18291.]
This bill would, instead, define "domestic violence" as
abuse committed against an adult or minor who is a
spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant or
person with whom the suspect has had a dating or
engagement relationship, consistent with the Family Code
definition.
This bill would define "cohabitant" as two adult persons
living together for a substantial period of time
resulting in some permanency of relationship.
This bill would define "domestic violence shelter" as a
shelter for domestic violence victims that provides
shelter in a confidential location, provides qualified
domestic violence counselors, and meets all the
requirements of this Act.
4. Existing law defines the requirements for shelters
that wish to qualify for prioritization of domestic
violence funds.
This bill would revise and recast those requirements,
including requiring shelters to:
comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act;
provide a 24 hour toll-free telephone hotline; and
ensure staff and volunteers meet the training
requirements set forth in Evidence Code Section 1037.1
for domestic violence counselors.
5. Existing law requires each center to prepare an annual
report that must include the total number of persons
requesting service, number of persons served by each type
of service, and a description of the social and economic
characteristics of persons receiving services by type of
service. [Welf. & Inst. 18300.]
This bill would prevent a county from requiring any
information not enumerated in the requirements for the
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 4
annual report, disclosure of any information pertaining
to the confidential location of a program, or identity of
a resident, employee or volunteer. This bill would
prevent a county from requiring a method of data
collection, or imposing any other requirement, that would
be inconsistent with the federal Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA).
This bill would require the county board of supervisors
to consult with the regional domestic violence coalition
in planning for the establishment of new domestic
violence shelter-based programs, or for ongoing technical
assistance to existing programs.
6. Existing law requires, at the time of issuance of a
marriage license, $23 of each fee to be deposited into
the county domestic violence programs special fund.
Collected fees are disbursed on a yearly or more frequent
basis. [Welf. & Inst. Code 18305.]
This bill would instead refer to a county domestic
violence shelter-based programs special fund. This bill
would additionally provide that funds shall be disbursed
using a request for qualification (RFQ) process.
7. Existing law provides that if a county does not have
sufficient funds in the special fund to finance all the
required basic services, and community services are not
available to finance those services, the county may
finance one or more of those services. [Welf. & Inst.
Code 18306.]
This bill would remove that allowance.
8. Existing law allows a county to carry over funds
deposited in the special fund until the domestic violence
program is established. [Welf. & Inst. Code 18307.]
Existing law requires funds deposited in a county
domestic violence special fund to be used to finance all,
or one or more, basic services required of shelters in
this Act. [Welf. & Inst. Code 18307.]
This bill would state that those funds shall be used for
shelter services, and may be used for direct or indirect
costs.
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 5
9. Existing law provides for Alameda County, City Council
of the City of Berkeley, Contra Costa County, and Solano
County to direct the local registrar, county recorder and
county clerk to deposit special increased fees into a
special fund. Except for Contra Costa County, those
provisions will sunset on January 1, 2010. Contra Costa
County's allowance to charge increased fees will sunset
on January 1, 2007. [Welf. & Inst. Code 18308 - 10.]
This bill would continue the allowance for Alameda
County, City Council of the City of Berkeley, and Solano
County to collect the increased fees, and would preserve
their January 1, 2010 sunset date. This bill would not
include references to Contra Costa County as its
allowance sunsets on January 1, 2007.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
California has a network of over 100 domestic
violence shelter-based programs. These programs
provide shelter in a confidential location 24
hours a day, seven days a week and provide
services by staff that is domestic violence
trained . . . However, far too many women and
children who need shelter are turned away due to
lack of space. In 2005, the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services reported that 5,108 people
were turned away from shelters due to lack of
space. (OES, FVPSA VOCA Statistics 04-05.)
For thirty years, marriage license fees have
supported domestic violence shelters as was
intended when this funding source was created.
However, there is a growing trend of allocating
funds from marriage license fees to domestic
violence "programs" that do not provide shelter,
either emergency or transitional. Taking these
already meager funds from existing shelters
endangers the shelters as well as the
comprehensive response services shelters have
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 6
built over decades.
. . .
AB 2084 is an effort to clarify any ambiguity in
the law about the intent of marriage license fees
as a funding source for domestic violence
shelters.
2. Objections to limiting the shelters which may receive
funding
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), in
opposition, states that:
[u]nder the recast Domestic Violence
Shelter-Based Programs Act - specifically,
Welfare and Institutions Code 18293(d) - counties
would be required to direct all revenue collected
under Government Code Section 26840.7 to domestic
violence shelters-based programs. Current law is
much more flexible, giving local boards of
supervisors the ability to prioritize funding to
'agencies and organizations whose primary
function is to administer domestic violence
programs.' That language clearly expresses
intent to support primary domestic violence
programs, but gives local boards flexibility to
determine the range and types of services that
are supported.
Thus, instead of prioritizing funding to "agencies and
organizations whose primary function it is to administer
domestic violence programs," AB 2084 would require all
funding to go to those programs. While this would
increase funding for those shelters, it would also remove
the power of the local board of supervisors to fund other
domestic-violence prevention services, as needed.
As a compromise, committee staff suggests the bill be
amended to allow the local county board of supervisors to
allocate funds for other domestic-violence programs after
holding a public hearing.
SHOULD THE BILL BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THE LOCAL COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONTINUE TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 7
OTHER DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE PROGRAMS AFTER HOLDING A PUBLIC
HEARING?
3. Need to continue the exemption for those counties, and
city, that currently have special funding provisions
As stated above, three counties and one city have
previously received legislative approval for increased
funding of their domestic violence programs. Although
the provision for one of these counties, Contra Costa, is
set to sunset on January 1, 2007, SB 968 (Torlakson)
would delete that sunset provision. The supplemental
funding for the Alameda County, the City of Berkeley, and
Solano County is currently set to sunset on January 1,
2010.
Considering that all of these counties, and city, have
separate funding provisions, they should retain their
autonomy to direct how those funds are allocated among
domestic violence programs. Thus, all three counties,
and the City of Berkeley should be exempted from the
funding restrictions of this bill.
SHOULD NOT THOSE COUNTIES, AND CITY, WITH SPECIAL FUNDING
PROVISIONS BE ELIMINATED FROM THE FUNDING RESTRICTIONS OF
THIS BILL?
4. Remaining provisions are technical and clarifying
The remaining provisions of the bill revise and recast
the provisions of the Domestic Violence Centers Act.
Notable changes include:
requiring volunteers, staff and counselors to meet
the training requirements of Evidence Code Section
1037.1.
preventing a county from disclosing the
confidential location of a domestic violence shelter
or victim.
redefine domestic violence, cohabitant, and
domestic violence shelter.
allow shelters may use funding without restriction
as to use.
require shelters to comply with the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Support: American Association of University Women; Asian
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 8
Pacific Women's Center; Asian Women's Shelter;
California Women's Law Center; Center for the
Pacific Asian Family; Coalition to End Family
Violence; Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse
(CORA); Community Solutions; Cooperative Restraining
Order Clinic; Domestic Abuse Center; Domestic
Violence Education and Services; El Dorado Women's
Center; Emergency Shelter Program, Inc.; Equality
California; Family Services of Tulare County; Haven
Women's Center; Interface Children Family Services
Domestic; Interval House Crisis Shelters for Victims
of Domestic Violence; Jenesse Center, Inc.; Jewish
Family Violence Project; La Casa de las Madres;
Lambda Letters Project; Los Angeles Commission on
Assaults Against Women (LACAAW); Marin Abused
Women's Services; Marjaree Mason Center; Mountain
Crisis Services; Napa Emergency Women's Services;
Plumas Rural Services Inc., Domestic Violence
Services; Former Senator Robert Presley; Rainbow
Services; Riley Center of St. Vincent DePaul
Society; Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments
(SAVE); Safequest Solano; Santa Clara County
Domestic Violence Advocacy Consortium; South Bay
Community Services; South Lake Tahoe Women's Center;
Stand Against Domestic Violence; Su Casa Domestic
Abuse Network; Su Casa - Ending Domestic Violence;
Support Network for Battered Women; Women's Center -
High Desert, Inc.; Women's Crisis Support - Defensa
de Mujeres; YWCA of Glendale; YMCA Sonoma County;
one individual
Opposition: California State Association of Counties
(CSAC); Fresno County Board of
Supervisors; Solano Board of Supervisors; Jan
Scully, District Attorney, Sacramento County
HISTORY
Source: California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
(sponsor)
Related Pending Legislation: SB 968 (Torlakson), would
delete the sunset date for the supplemental
AB 2084 (Karnette)
Page 9
funding for Contra Costa county, and increase
that funding. (This bill is currently in the
Assembly Judiciary Committee.)
Prior Legislation: SB 425 (Torlakson), Chapter 90, Statutes
of 2001, authorized Contra Costa
County to increase the fees for
certain certificates for the
purpose of funding domestic
violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution
efforts in the county.
AB 2010 (Hancock), Chapter 830,
Statutes of 2004, authorized
Alameda and Solano Counties to
increase fees for certificates
in order to fund domestic
violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution
efforts in the counties.
AB 1712 (Hancock), Chapter 545,
Statutes of 2005, authorized the
City Council of the City of
Berkeley to increase fees for
certificates in order to fund
domestic violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution
efforts in the counties
Prior Vote: Asm. Jud (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
Asm. Appr. (Ayes 13, Noes 5)
Asm. Floor (Ayes 56, Noes 22)
**************