BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 154
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 154 (Wolk) - As Amended: April 5, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 21-17
SUBJECT : SOLANO COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING: FEES
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD A PILOT PROGRAM, PERMITTING THE SOLANO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO INCREASE SPECIFIED FEES TO SUPPORT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS IN THAT
COUNTY, BE EXTENDED INDEFINITELY?
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, five counties to increase fees for copies of various
vital 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, after
reviewing program reports required as a condition of the pilots,
made the programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the
City of Berkeley permanent.
Current law authorizes Solano County, until January 1, 2012, to
increase fees for certified copies of vital records by up to $2
for domestic violence prevention, intervention and prosecution
efforts. This bill, sponsored by the Solano County Board of
Supervisors, deletes the January 1, 2012 sunset date thereby
extending the operation of this authority indefinitely. Solano
County's program originally expired on January 1, 2010, but
legislation last year and the year before extended the sunset by
one year each time. (SB 1222 (Wolk), Chap. 520, Stats. 2010; SB
635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009.) Solano County had
decided to use the funds to help construct a family justice
center (FJC), but the revenue raise by the County had not been
sufficient to fund the construction and operation of an FJC.
Since that time, Solano County has decided not to construct a
new building for its FJC and has recognized that it may be more
SB 154
Page 2
cost-effective to acquire existing space for the FJC.
Currently, the County is implementing a three-phase process to
relocate the FJC partners. Based on the progress made, it would
appear to be appropriate to delete the sunset provision to allow
Solano County to continue its fee authority to fund domestic
violence prevention programs.
The bill is supported by, among others, the Solano County
District Attorney's Office, Probation Department and Superior
Court, who write that the bill is necessary to provide
comprehensive services to victims of domestic violence and their
children to assist them in achieving stability and healing and
to hold offenders accountable for their crimes. It is opposed
by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who argues that the
fee increase is a special tax that, under Proposition 26,
requires approval by a two-thirds vote, and the County
Recorders' Association of California, who argues that the fee is
an undue financial burden on citizens purchasing copies of vital
records and on county recorders responsible for administering
the collection and distribution of the special fee.
SUMMARY : Extends indefinitely a program that allows Solano
County to increase specified fees to fund domestic violence
prevention programs. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends indefinitely the authority of the Solano County Board
of Supervisors, upon making specified findings and
declarations, 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 (subject to Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases)
to be used for governmental oversight and coordination of
domestic violence and family violence prevention,
intervention, and prosecution efforts.
2)Requires the Solano County Board of Supervisors to submit to
the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, no later than
July 1, 2014, a report about the annual amounts of funds
received and expended from fee increases in #1 and the
outcomes achieved.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the Solano County Board of Supervisors, upon making
findings and declarations of the need for governmental
SB 154
Page 3
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 (subject to CPI
increases), until January 1, 2012, in order to fund
governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
and family violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution
efforts. (Government Code Section 26840.11; Health and Safety
Code Section 103628; Welfare and Institutions Code Section
18309.5.)
2)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
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.)
3)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.)
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.)
5)Authorizes the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, upon
making findings and declarations of the need for governmental
oversight and coordination of domestic violence agencies, to
SB 154
Page 4
increase fees for certified copies of marriage certificates,
fetal death records, and death records by up to $2, until
January 1, 2016. (Health and Safety Code Section 103628.6;
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 18309.8.)
COMMENTS : Over the last decade, the Legislature has authorized,
on a pilot basis, five counties 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 FJC 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 Legislature, after reviewing program
reports required as a condition of the pilots, made the programs
in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the City of Berkeley
permanent.
Originally authorized by AB 2010 (Hancock), Chap. 830, Stats.
2004, Solano County's program to raise the fees of marriage
licenses and of certified copies of vital records to fund
governmental oversight and coordination of domestic violence
prevention and intervention was scheduled to sunset on January
1, 2010. In 2009, SB 635 (Wiggins), Chap. 356, Stats. 2009,
extended the sunset for an additional year, until January 1,
2011; and last year SB 1222 (Wolk), Chap. 520, again extended
the sunset for one more year, until January 1, 2012. This bill
seeks to lift the sunset and allow Solano County to extend the
program indefinitely.
According to the author, the fees collected by the Solano County
Board of Supervisors through this pilot program are an important
source of domestic violence program funding for the county, and
are deposited into a fund to be used for the construction of a
FJC. The author explains that Solano County would like to
continue this effort.
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
SB 154
Page 5
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
percent 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 Pilots Programs to Combat Domestic Violence Made
Permanent : While initially begun as pilots, the programs in
Alameda and Contra Costa 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
SB 154
Page 6
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 FJC 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.
Solano County's Recent Changes in its Domestic Violence
Prevention and Protection Program Based on Making the Best Use
of Funds Available Appears to Warrant Extension of the Program :
Pursuant to AB 2010, Solano County was required to submit a
report to the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees by July
1, 2009 containing information regarding: (1) the annual amounts
of funds received and expended from fee increases for the
purposes of governmental oversight and coordination of domestic
violence prevention, intervention, and prosecution efforts in
the county; and (2) outcomes achieved as a result of the
activities associated with implementation of the pilot program.
Solano County's report outlined plans for the construction and
opening of an FJC, similar to the one in Alameda County.
SB 154
Page 7
The FJC model is designed to create a coordinated,
single-point-of-access center offering comprehensive services
for victims of domestic violence, thereby reducing the number of
locations a victim must visit in order to receive critical
services. The United States Department of Justice, through its
Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), has identified the FJC
model as a best practice in the field of domestic violence.
According to the OVW, positive FJC outcomes include a reduction
in the rate of homicide; increased victim safety; improved
offender prosecution; reduced fear and anxiety for victims and
their children; increased efficiency among service providers
through the provision of collaborative services; and increased
community support for the provision of services to victims and
their children. (Casey Gwinn and Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting
Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across America
(Volcano Press, 2006).)
While the establishment of an FJC is a laudable goal, the
revenue raised by Solano County, as indicated in Solano County's
updated 2010 report, through the increased fees is not nearly
sufficient to fund the construction and operation of an FJC.
Thus, last year the Legislature gave the County a short,
one-year sunset in order to provide Solano County an opportunity
to assess and demonstrate whether construction of an FJC is a
feasible goal, or alternatively, what other ways the funds could
be used to accomplish the laudable purposes set forth in
statute.
Since that time, Solano County has decided not to construct a
new building for its FJC and has recognized that it may be more
cost-effective to acquire existing space for the FJC.
Currently, the County is implementing a three-phase process to
relocate the FJC partners. Five staff members including social
workers, a victim empowerment coordinator, a confidential
advocate and the FJC coordinator have been relocated to new
space. In July, they will move into a new larger space within
the District Attorney's office and eight more staff members will
move over. Finally, by the end of 2011 an ideal space will have
been identified and acquired and will accommodate at least 23
partners.
Since last year, Solano County has also secured additional grant
funds. In addition to the revenues generated from the vital
records fees Solano County, through the county's Office of
Family Violence and Prevention, has received three grants from
SB 154
Page 8
the United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence
Against Women. This grant money will be used for the FJC
project.
Based on the progress made, it would appear to be appropriate to
delete the sunset provision to allow Solano County to continue
its fee authority to fund domestic violence prevention programs.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Solano County
Board of Supervisors writes: "It is the goal of the Board of
Supervisors to ensure victims of domestic violence and their
children receive comprehensive services designed to assist them
in achieving stability and healing. Without SB 154, our ability
to collect these fees will be eliminated and victims of domestic
violence and their children will be challenged to navigate a
system that is not yet fully linked or coordinated."
Other supporters, including the Solano County District
Attorney's Office, Probation Department and Superior Court, add
that without an FJC domestic violence victims and their children
"must navigate about 23 different agencies in order to have
their needs met. The need for a single point of entry for these
families can mean the difference between safety and an uncertain
future filled with violence and fear and our most vulnerable
victims - or children, will not receive the critical services
and support that they so desperately need." These supporters
write that it is their goal "to ensure victims of domestic
violence and their children receive appropriate services
designed to assist them in achieving stability and healing and
that we hold offenders accountable for their crimes. . . . It
is our collective goal to ensure victims of domestic violence
and their children receive comprehensive services designed to
assist them in achieving stability and healing."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition, the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association writes that the indefinite extension of
the permission for a fee increase in the bill is really a tax
under Proposition 26. The Association writes that the bill
lacks an appropriate regulatory nexus and is therefore "a
special tax requiring a two-thirds vote."
On November 2, 2010, the voters approved Proposition 26, an
initiative constitutional amendment, that expanded the
definition of a "tax" to include many state and local government
SB 154
Page 9
assessments previously classified as "fees." Among other
provisions, Proposition 26 amended Article XIII C, Section 1 of
the California Constitution to define the term "tax" as any
levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local
government, with seven specific exemptions. If the extension of
the fee increase does not fall into one of those exemptions, it
will likely require approval by local voters. However, since
this bill does not mandate the fee extension, but simply allows
the county to extend the fee increase, it does not require a
two-thirds vote in the Legislature.
The County Recorders' Association of California, while agreeing
with the need to fund domestic violence programs, also opposes
the bill, arguing that the additional $2 fee "continues the
undue financial burden on California citizens purchasing copies
of vital records and county recorders responsible for
administering the collection and distribution of the required
special fee." It is important to note that the bill
specifically allows the county to retain up to four percent for
administrative costs associated with the collection and
segregation of the additional fees.
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
domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in Sonoma
County until January 1, 2015.
AB 1770 (Galgiani), Chap. 578, Stats. 2010, established a
similar domestic violence prevention funding pilot program in
Stanislaus County until January 1, 2016.
SB 154
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Communities United Institution
LIFT3 Support Group
Solano County Board of Supervisors
Solano County District Attorney's Office
Solano County Probation Department
Solano County Superior Court
St. Stephen Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Triad Family Services
Opposition
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
County Recorders' Association of California
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334