BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1883
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 23, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1883 (Evans) - As Amended: March 15, 2010
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO BETTER PROTECT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SHOULD COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS BE PERMITTED TO
RAISE FEES FOR SPECIFIED VITAL RECORDS BY UP TO FOUR DOLLARS IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROGRAMS AND FOR DIRECT SERVICES TO VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized, on a pilot
basis, four counties to increase fees for marriage licenses and
for marriage and birth certificates and death records to fund
governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
prevention, intervention, and prosecution programs. Many of
these programs have been highly successful in combating domestic
violence and the Legislature has made the programs in Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley permanent.
This bill, sponsored by the California Partnership to End
Domestic, seeks to expand these successful programs statewide by
giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability to raise fees
for certified copies of marriage and birth certificates and
death records by up to four dollars in order to fund
governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
prevention, intervention, and services to victims and their
families. Any county that elects to raise the fees to combat
domestic violence must report on their programs to the
Legislature by February 1, 2015, and these pilots sunset on
January 1, 2016.
This bill is opposed by groups that work to prevent child abuse,
unless amended to delete the possible fee increase to the birth
certificate. They argue that a fee currently added to birth
certificates is a source of funding for child abuse prevention
AB 1883
Page 2
and intervention, and this bill could make it politically more
difficult to increase birth certificate fees in the future to
fund additional child abuse prevention efforts, should they at
some later point seek to do so. It is important to note that
this bill in no way diminishes the funding currently available
to prevent child abuse nor prevents any future funding increase.
SUMMARY : Authorizes, as a pilot program, county boards of
supervisors to increase specified fees to fund domestic violence
prevention programs and direct services. Specifically, this
bill :
1)States the findings of the Legislature that, among other
things:
a) In California, 9.2 percent of women live in homes where
domestic abuse occurs. Domestic violence is ubiquitous,
cutting across all economic and education levels, all age
groups, ethnicities, and other social and community
characteristics.
b) In nearly half of violent crimes where victim and
aggressor are related, the aggressor is either the spouse
or ex-spouse. Marriage license fees collected through this
act would help communities intervene and prevent domestic
violence in these cases.
c) Domestic violence puts children at risk. Children born
into families where domestic violence occurs are physically
abused or seriously neglected at a rate significantly
higher than the national average in the general population.
Birth certificate fees collected through this act would
help communities with costs to ensure that children who are
born into families with domestic violence receive the help
they need.
d) Studies show more than 10 percent of women are victims
of domestic violence during pregnancy. Pregnant women who
are assaulted by their spouses are 50 percent more likely
to experience fetal loss (often repeatedly) than women who
were not abused. Women who are battered during pregnancy
are also more likely to die, or their children are born
prematurely with low-birth weights and intense medical
needs. Death certificate fees would help communities with
costs associated with ensuring that pregnant women with
violent spouses receive help and protection and care for
their unborn children and infants.
e) Domestic violence costs are high. Not only is there a
AB 1883
Page 3
toll on families emotionally and financially, but there are
also direct and hidden costs to society. Most directly,
are the high costs of law enforcement, civil and criminal
justice, health services and other community-based
services. Less visible costs include job turnover, loss of
productivity, school absenteeism, and low school
performance.
f) Community-based domestic violence programs provide
critical services to victims by raising awareness about
helping victims find stability, health, well-being and
justice.
g) Domestic violence requires a multifaceted intervention
that engages civil, criminal, health, and social service
sectors working together to align objectives, protocols,
policies and activities of each sector.
2)Authorizes a county board of supervisors, upon making
specified findings and declarations, to increase the fees for
certified copies of marriage and birth certificates, and death
records, by up to $4. Directs that the fees be deposited into
a special fund from which one-half of the fees can be used for
governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution
efforts and one-half to nonprofit, community-based
organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and
their families, including but not limited to organizations
that serve underserved communities.
3)Allows Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of
Berkeley, upon making specified findings and declarations, to
increase the fees for certified copies of marriage and birth
certificates, and death records, by up to $2. Directs that
the fees be provided to nonprofit, community-based
organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and
their families.
4)Allows Solano and Sonoma Counties, until the expiration of
their respective domestic violence pilot funding programs and
upon making specified findings and declarations, to increase
the fees for certified copies of marriage and birth
certificates, and death records, by up to $2. Directs that
the fees be provided to nonprofit, community-based
organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and
their families. After expiration of their respective domestic
violence pilot funding programs, allows these counties to
AB 1883
Page 4
participate fully in the domestic violence prevention program
in #2, above.
5)Requires that funds provided to nonprofit, community-based
organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and
their families be awarded through a competitive request for
proposals process.
6)Requires that any county board of supervisors or the City of
Berkeley that elects to increase fees as specified in this
bill must submit to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary
Committees a report by February 1, 2015 regarding the funds
received, the activities funded and the outcomes of those
activities.
7)Sunsets the program on January 1, 2016.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and the
Berkeley City Council, upon making specified findings and
declarations, to increase the fees for marriage licenses and
confidential marriage licenses, as well as certified copies of
marriage, birth, and death certificates, by up to $2, with
further increases permitted on an annual basis, based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). Directs that the fees be
deposited into a special fund to be used for governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence and family
violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts.
(Government Code Section 26840.10; Health and Safety Code
Sections 103627, 103627.5; Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 18309.)
2)Authorizes a $4 fee (subject to CPI increases) for certified
copies of marriage certificates, birth certificates, and death
records to provide funding for governmental oversight and
coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention,
and prosecution efforts in the Contra Costa County. (Health
and Safety Code Section 103626; Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 18308.)
3)Authorizes the Solano County Board of Supervisors, upon making
findings and declarations of the need for governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to
increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage
AB 1883
Page 5
licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal
death records, and death records by up to $2, until January 1,
2011. (Government Code Section 26840.11; Health and Safety
Code Section 103628; Welfare and Institutions Code Section
18309.5.)
4)Authorizes the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, upon making
findings and declarations of the need for governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to
increase fees for marriage licenses, confidential marriage
licenses, and certified copies of marriage certificates, fetal
death records, and death records by up to $2, until January 1,
2015. (Government Code Section 26840.12; Health and Safety
Code Section 103628.2; Welfare and Institutions Code Section
18309.6.)
COMMENTS : Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized,
on a pilot basis, four counties, including, Alameda, and Contra
Costa, to increase fees for marriage licenses and for marriage,
birth and death certificates to fund governmental oversight and
coordination of domestic violence prevention, intervention, and
prosecution programs. These programs have been highly
successful and have led to the creation of a family justice
center in Alameda County, a youth intervention program in the
City of Berkeley and significantly greater coordination of
services in Contra Costa County. As a result of their
successes, the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and
the City of Berkeley have been made permanent.
This bill, sponsored by the California Partnership to End
Domestic, seeks to allow the expansion of these programs
statewide by giving all counties, on a pilot basis, the ability
to raise fees for certified copies of marriage and birth
certificates and death records by up to four dollars in order to
fund governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
violence prevention, intervention, and services to victims and
their families.
Devastating Effects of Domestic Violence on Children and
Families : Domestic violence is a serious criminal justice and
public health problem most often perpetrated against women.
(Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence:
Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey, U.S.
Department of Justice (2001).) Prevalence of domestic violence
at the national level ranges from 960,000 to three million women
AB 1883
Page 6
each year who are physically abused by their husbands or
boyfriends. While the numbers are staggering, they only include
those cases of reported domestic violence. In fact, according
to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey of women's health, nearly 31%
of American women report being physically or sexually abused by
a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. (Health
Concerns Across a Woman's Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women's
Health, The Commonwealth Fund (May 1999).)
Domestic violence continues to be a significant problem in
California. In 2005, the Attorney General's Task Force on
Domestic Violence reported that:
The health consequences of physical and psychological
domestic violence can be significant and long lasting,
for both victims and their children. . . . A study by
the California Department of Health Services of
women's health issues found that nearly six percent of
women, or about 620,000 women per year, experienced
violence or physical abuse by their intimate partners.
Women living in households where children are present
experienced domestic violence at much higher rates
than women living in households without children:
domestic violence occurred in more than 436,000
households per year in which children were present,
potentially exposing approximately 916,000 children to
violence in their homes every year.
(Report to the California Attorney General from the Task Force
on Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence, Keeping
the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability (June
2005) (footnotes omitted).)
That report discovered numerous significant and troubling
problems in the implementation of statutory directives aimed at
preventing domestic violence, including failing to enter
restraining orders into CLETS (California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System) and failing to ensure that batterers
attend mandated treatment programs.
Successful Pilot Programs to Combat Domestic Violence Made
Permanent : While initially begun as pilots, the programs in
Alameda and Contra Costs County and the City of Berkeley have
now been made permanent. In support of making those programs
permanent, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors wrote that
AB 1883
Page 7
the funds from the fee increases have played a vital role in
funding the coordination costs and have "changed the way systems
and service providers are delivering essential and critical
services to victims of domestic violence and their children."
The Board noted that domestic violence deaths in the county
dropped from 26 in 2001 to 3 in 2006, with a goal of zero deaths
going forward.
The Alameda County District Attorney's Office agreed, stating
that as a result of the Family Justice Center in the county
built, in part, with funds provided by the fee increases, "there
is a new (or re-newed) confidence on the part of Victims that
the legal systems work for them and that there are resources and
service providers who will work together to protect, support and
empower them and their children to have lives free of
interpersonal violence."
The Berkeley City Council told the Legislature that it uses
these funds for a youth intervention in the schools to promote
healthy relationships and prevent domestic violence, modeled
after "extremely successful peer health educator programs."
As a result of the increased funding, Contra Costa County has
been able to, among other things, increase funding for a
coordinated system and for individual agencies; increase
systemwide accountability; increase batterer accountability; and
increase protections for victims and children. Prior to the fee
increase, individual agencies had not worked together smoothly,
but the funding increase has permitted the county to operate an
efficient and coordinated system.
Building On Successful County Programs, This Bill Authorizes
Expansion Of Pilots Statewide, Thus Avoiding A Piecemeal
Approach : This year, two additional counties - Stanislaus and
Yolo - seek legislative approval to begin pilot programs and
Solano County seeks to extend the sunset for its ongoing pilot.
(AB 1770 (Galgiani); AB 2348 (Yamada); SB 1222 (Wolk).)
Rather than continue this piecemeal approach, this bill allows
all county boards of supervisors, upon making specified findings
and declaration on the need for more funding to combat domestic
violence, to increase the fees for certified copies of marriage
and birth certificates, and death records, by up to $4. If a
county elects to increase these fees, half of the fees must be
used for governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
AB 1883
Page 8
violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and
prosecution efforts. The other half of the fees must be
provided to nonprofit, community-based organizations that serve
victims of domestic violence and their families, including but
not limited to organizations that serve underserved communities.
In order to ensure the funding for community-based
organizations is used as effectively as possible, the bill
requires that this funding be awarded to local programs through
a competitive process that begins with a request for proposals.
This bill is designed to work in tandem with the existing
domestic violence prevention programs, which only allow for
funding of governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
violence and family violence prevention, intervention, and
prosecution efforts, by providing that those entities with
existing programs may seek to raise fees by up to $2 in order to
fund nonprofit, community-based organizations that serve victims
of domestic violence and their families.
Any county that elects to raise fees as permitted by this bill
must report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by
December 31, 2015 on the funds received, the activities funded
and the outcomes of those activities. All of the domestic
violence funding permitted by the bill sunset on January 1,
2016. However, given that the required reports will help the
Legislature determine how successful the programs have been and
will be necessary before any extension of the sunset should be
consideration, the author has agreed to amend the bill to
require the reports by February 1, 2015. This change is
accomplished by the following amendment:
On page 6, line 11, delete "December 31" and insert "February 1"
Supporters Argue Convincingly That Under The Supreme Court's
Test, Funding For The Domestic Violence Oversight And
Coordination Programs Constitutes A Fee And Not A Tax . In
opposition to previous legislation, groups have argued that a
fee increase like the one under this bill constitutes a tax that
requires local approval. While a tax does indeed require a
2/3rds vote of the Legislature or of local voters, a bona fide
regulatory fee does not. The California Supreme Court laid out
the distinction between a fee and a tax in Sinclair Paints v.
Board of Equalization (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866. In that case, the
Court found that a fee assessed on paint manufacturers under the
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 was properly a
AB 1883
Page 9
bona fide regulatory fee designed to mitigate the effects of
lead poisoning and not a tax. In order to be classified as a
regulatory fee and not a tax, the court held that the fee must
not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the services
necessary for which the fee is charged, and must not be levied
for an unrelated revenue purpose.
Following the first prong of the Sinclair Paints test, this bill
provides that fees from the program can only be used for
specific domestic violence programs. Thus, the fees cannot
exceed the reasonable cost of the services for which the fee is
charged. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the fees charged
are in excess of the cost of providing the specified services.
Under the second prong of the Sinclair Paints test, the fee must
be levied for a related purpose. Here, the nexus between the
fee and the services it funds is clearly set forth in the
legislative findings. Domestic violence, which occurs in
families and cuts across all economic, educational, age and
ethnic lines, can result in injury or death of the victims and
is learned generationally. Thus domestic violence involves
marriages, births, and deaths. In support of a similar bill for
Alameda and Solano Counties, the Alameda County District
Attorney's Office very articulately stated the nexus between the
fee increase and domestic violence in a memo to the Governor's
Office:
Without stopping violence in the home, we will never
stop violence in the community. Without stopping
violence in the community, all citizens are potential
victims of that violence.
The nexus between the special fee increase allowed
under [the original legislation] and
marriage-birth-fetal death and death certified
certificates cannot be ignored. Statistically, the
most lethal times for a victim of domestic violence,
and children who witness that violence, a) is when she
is separating from the batterer; b) becomes pregnant;
c) after children are born; and d) after getting
married.
The fees in this bill and the specific uses of those fees, are
also identical, or nearly identical, to those for the programs
in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties that the Legislature and
AB 1883
Page 10
the Governor have made permanent. (SB 968 (Torlakson), Chap.
635, Stats. 2006; AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009.)
Sheriffs' Association Support : The bill requires that the funds
raised be divided equally between governmental oversight and
coordination on the one hand and direct services to victims on
the other. The California State Sheriffs' Association supports
the bill, but suggests that counties be permitted to decide how
best to use the funds: "Whether it's through programs,
non-profits, domestic violence education, intervention, or
prosecution, each county is unique in the solution that would
best address their needs." However, such a change may make it
politically difficult for counties to fund vital direct services
to victims of domestic violence and their families.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence writes:
This bill seeks to address the need of counties to
provide funding for their anti-violence programs or
plans, and support domestic violence services for
underserved communities and community-based domestic
violence programs that do not qualify for marriage
license fees. . . .
With the elimination of state funding, reduction in
local and private donations and a substantial increase
in the demand for services, shelters are unable to
partner and provide funding to non-profit agencies
that do critical work in underserved communities to
prevent domestic violence, and/or provide culturally
competent sources of support for survivors and their
families. These community based non-profits provide
critical support for survivors and their children and
ensure them a life free from abuse.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Groups that work to prevent child
abuse oppose this bill unless amended to delete the possible fee
increase to the birth certificate. They argue that a fee
currently added to birth certificates is a source of funding for
child abuse prevention and intervention, and this bill could
make it politically more difficult to increase birth certificate
fees in the future to fund additional child abuse prevention
efforts, should they at some later point seek to do so. It is
important to note that this bill in no way diminishes the
AB 1883
Page 11
funding currently available to prevent child abuse nor prevents
any future funding increase.
Pending Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight Funding
Programs in Selected Counties : AB 1770 (Galgiani) establishes a
similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in
Stanislaus County.
AB 2348 (Yamada) establishes a similar domestic violence
prevention funding pilot program in Yolo County.
SB 1222 (Wolk) extends the existing pilot program in Solano
County until January 1, 2014.
Previous Legislation Creating Domestic Violence Oversight and
Coordination Funding Programs : SB 425 (Torlakson), Chap. 90,
Stats. 2001, established a similar domestic violence prevention
funding pilot program in Contra Costa County. SB 968
(Torlakson), Chap. 635, Stats. 2006, repealed the sunset date,
making Contra Costa's program effective indefinitely.
AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats. 2004, established the pilot
programs in Alameda County and Solano County. AB 1712
(Hancock), Chap. 545, Stats. 2005, authorized the City of
Berkeley, within Alameda County, to also participate in the
pilot program. AB 73 (Hayashi), Chap. 215, Stats. 2009,
repealed the sunset date, making Alameda's and Berkeley's
programs effective indefinitely.
SB 635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009, established a similar
pilot program for Sonoma County and extended the sunset for the
pilot program in Solano County until 2011.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (sponsor)
California State Sheriffs' Association
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Opposition (unless amended)
California Parenting Institute
The Child Abuse Prevention Center
AB 1883
Page 12
Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County
Child Abuse Prevention Council of El Dorado County
Fresno Council on Child Abuse Prevention
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334