BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2264
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2264 (De Leon) - As Amended: April 6, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits garnishing the bank account or earnings of a
homeless youth for failure to pay penalties imposed by a court
due to violation of a state or local law related to truancy,
loitering, curfew violations, or illegal lodging. A homeless
youth is defined as a person under the age of 25 who lacks a
fixed residence.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Moderate annual GF costs, likely in the low hundreds of
thousands of dollars for court staff to research whether cited
youths are homeless and otherwise eligible for exemption from
garnishment. Moreover the determination of homelessness is not
a static determination as this status is transient.
2)Minor state and local revenue loss to the extent that fewer
financial penalties on homeless youth are not collected.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author notes that homeless youth are not
homeless by choice and that the threat of garnishment serves
only as a barrier to reintegration into society. According to
the author, "Homeless youth are often ticketed for 'quality of
life' offenses such as loitering, truancy, illegal lodging,
and curfew violations. When they cannot pay the fines,
sometimes their wages and/or bank accounts are garnished,
making it harder for the nearly half of homeless youth who
have jobs and are working to try to end their homelessness.
And, by making it harder for homeless youth to obtain homes by
AB 2264
Page 2
their own hard work, garnishment actually promotes the
behaviors (loitering, illegal lodging, etc.) the tickets are
intended to dissuade.
"AB 2264 seeks to provide some much-needed relief for former
foster youth and other youth who have been forced into
homelessness and are trying to work their way out of sleeping
on the streets. Homeless youth would still be required to pay
the original fines for these 'quality of life' offenses, but
orders to garnish bank accounts or earnings would be
prohibited for homeless youth under 25 years old."
2)Efficacy? While this bill is clearly well-intentioned, court
representatives are concerned the proposal is unworkable. The
courts simply lack the information to comply. The courts also
contend that it is a rare occurrence for a homeless youth to
be garnished, as the courts and their intermediary collecting
agencies do not recoup their collection costs unless the fines
are collected, and in most cases, homeless youth are difficult
to find and even more difficult to collect from.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081