BILL ANALYSIS
SB 733
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 733 (Leno) - As Amended: January 26, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California Victims Compensation and
Government Claims Board (VCGCB or board) to administer a grant
program for trauma recovery centers (TRCs), and authorize the
board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to award grants
totaling up to $3 million from the Restitution Fund to TRCs that
provide services to crime victims. Specifically this bill:
1)Authorizes the board to provide funding for up to three years;
the board may award consecutive grants to a TRC to "prevent a
lapse in funding."
2)Defines a TRC as a center with a multidisciplinary staff of
clinicians who provide mental health services, community-based
outreach and clinical case management, and coordination of
care between providers, social service agencies, and law
enforcement.
3)Requires a TRC to demonstrate, for purposes of grant
eligibility, that it serves as a community resource by
providing services such as presentations and training to law
enforcement, community-based organizations, and other health
care providers regarding the identification and effects of
violent crime.
4)Requires the board to give grant preference to:
a) TRCs that conduct outreach to, and serve crime victims
"who are typically unable to access traditional services,"
including the homeless, chronically mentally ill, disabled,
and immigrant populations.
SB 733
Page 2
b) TRCs that serve victims of a wide range of violent
crimes.
FISCAL EFFECT
Costs to the Restitution Fund of up to $3 million, contingent
upon a subsequent appropriation.
The $148 million Restitution Fund, supported by penalty
assessments, is currently flirting with insolvency in 2010-11,
with a projected reserve of about 4% at best ($6 million), and
will be insolvent by the close of 2011-12, with a deficit in the
range of $20 million.
The board notes they receive a 60% federal match on all payments
the board makes to crime victims. While this bill requires TCAs
to provide any information required by the board to qualify the
proposed grant funds for a federal match, the board notes that
of the $1.3 million provided to the UCSF TRC in 2006-07, only
about $100,000 qualified for a federal match due to
specifications regarding victim eligibility and allowable
expenses. (The author takes issue with the board's estimate
regarding federal fund eligibility and suggests a more thorough
effort by the board could greatly increase matching funds for
TRCs.)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends the TCA model is a
cost-effective means to provide services to crime victims
unable to navigate VCGCB processes, which the author suggests
are Byzantine and cost-inefficient. The author cites the
success of the UCSF TRC in providing services to crime victims
who are often unable to access traditional services, including
the homeless, the chronically mentally ill, and others with
complex psychosocial problems.
According to the author, "At any given time, crime statistics
suggest that there are many more victims of crime in
California eligible for services from the CVCGCB than actually
seek it out. Disadvantaged crime victims have an especially
difficult time gaining access to the system. A bureaucratic
maze of paperwork effectively denies them assistance and
represents an inherent bias in the current system of care.
Victims are required to produce as many as 10 supporting
SB 733
Page 3
documents to establish eligibility before beginning a waiting
period - lasting up to three months or more - to find out
whether their application for compensation has been accepted.
The goal of the state's victim services, and the obligation of
the state, is to serve victims, all victims, not just those
savvy enough to navigate the system.
"SB 733 offers victims an alternative by providing for the
establishment of a grant program within the CVCGCB which would
provide TRCs with the funding they need to offer expert
medical treatment directly to victims of crime.
"The grant program will be administered by the CVCGCB and
would fund programs that replicate the victim service model
developed at the San Francisco TRC (San Francisco General
Hospital/UCSF) which utilizes a multidisciplinary staff to
provide direct mental health services and treatment to victims
while coordinating services with law enforcement and other
social service agencies all under one roof. This victim
service model has received national recognition for its
ability to cost effectively meet the special needs of crime
victims immediately following their trauma.
"Unlike California's Victim Compensation Program (VCP), the
TRC model allows for aggressive outreach to vulnerable
populations - those individuals that are most susceptible to
becoming victims of crime and also the least likely to benefit
from VCP services."
2)2008 Bureau of State Audits (BSA) Report Criticizes VCGCB
processes . The author references the BSA report in support of
his contention that there is room - and need - for a better
service model. BSA criticisms levied at the board include:
a) From 2001-02 through 2004-05, VCP compensation payments
decreased from $124 million to $62 million.
b) Despite the significant decline in payments,
administrative costs make up a significant portion of the
SB 733
Page 4
Restitution Fund disbursements-ranging from 26% to 42%
annually.
c) The program did not always process applications and
bills efficiently.
d) The program's numerous problems with the transition to a
new application and bill processing system led to an
increase in complaints regarding processing delays.
The BSA made a series of recommendations, including the
following:
a) To improve processing time for making decisions on
applications and paying bills, the board should identify
the problems leading to delays and resolve them. It should
develop specific procedures to use when following up with
verifying entities, and it should continue efforts to
communicate to verifying entities the importance of
responding promptly to requests for information.
b) To ensure the board carries out its outreach efforts, it
should develop a comprehensive plan to prioritize its
efforts, and consider demographic and crime statistics
information when planning outreach strategies.
1)Supporters , including the L.A. D.A., the CA Emergency Nurses
Association, and San Francisco, support the need for outreach
and additional funding for victims services.
2)Opponents , including the VCGCB and the CA Coalition Against
Sexual Assault, contend it is crucial to deal with the
long-term stability of the Restitution Fund before funding
additional models. According to the Coalition, "This fund is
essential to victims throughout the state and at this time we
must join with others in opposing this legislation until the
Restitution Fund is restored to a stable balance."
3)VCGCB's Victim Compensation Program provides compensation to
injured crime victims. Family members or other persons may
also be eligible for compensation. The program is the payer of
last resort and covers a range of services, including medical
and mental health services, when the costs are not covered by
SB 733
Page 5
other sources, such as insurance. Depending on circumstances,
payment can be made either directly to an individual or to a
service provider.
4)Related Legislation.
a) AB 1669 (Leno, 2007), similar to AB 733, was vetoed. The
governor stated "In my signing message for AB 50 in 2006, I
stated that the use of Restitution Funds for the San
Francisco Trauma Recovery Center (TRC) should be considered
a one-time appropriation. This appropriation was granted in
order to provide time to identify alternate sources of
funding for the TRC and other similar programs. The use of
the Restitution Fund to replicate and fund programs of this
type presents a significant concern to its ongoing ability
to support the compensation of crime victims for which it
was established.
"While the model of service supported by this bill has
proven effective at the TRC, the Restitution Fund is an
inappropriate ongoing source of funding for this type of
program. The Restitution Fund is the funding source of the
Victim Compensation Program, which was designated to pay
for certain out-of-pocket expenses to specific victims of
crime. In contrast, the trauma centers that would be
supported by this bill provide comprehensive services,
which exceed out-of-pocket expenses, to individuals that
are not restricted to victims of crime."
b) AB 50 (Leno), Chapter 884, Statutes of 2006,
appropriated $1.3 million for the TRC at the San Francisco
General Hospital.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081