BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 557|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 557
Author: Kehoe (D)
Amended: 05/02/11
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 3/29/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/10/11
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SUBJECT : Family Justice Centers
SOURCE : National Family Justice Centers Alliance
DIGEST : This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the
City of Anaheim, the county of Alameda and the County of
Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the
establishment of a family justice centers and allows for
the family justice centers to be staffed by, among others,
law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare
personnel. The provisions of this bill sunset on January
1, 2014.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the California Constitution,
declares that the right to privacy is an inalienable right.
(California Constitution, article I, section 1.)
Existing federal law, the Health Insurance Portability and
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
2
Accountability Act of 1996 requires that medical
information be kept confidential unless authorized by the
patient. Existing law allows for disclosure to law
enforcement personnel for specified purposes. (Public Law
104-191; 45 CFR 160, 164.)
Existing law provides that a victim of domestic violence
has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent
another from disclosing, a confidential communication
between the victim and a domestic violence counselor.
(Evidence Code Section 1037.5.)
Existing law provides for the establishment of
community-based domestic violence victim shelters and
services. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections.
18290-18309.5.)
Existing law provides for the California Emergency
Management Agency to provide grants to proposed and
existing child sexual exploitation and child sexual abuse
victim counseling centers and prevention programs,
including programs for minor victims of human trafficking.
(Penal Code Section 13837.)
Existing law provides that child protective services
agencies, law enforcement, prosecution, child abuse and
domestic violence experts, and community-based
organizations serving abused children and victims of
domestic violence shall develop, in collaboration with one
another, protocols as to how law enforcement and child
welfare agencies will cooperate in their response to
incidents of domestic violence in homes in which a child
resides. (Penal Code Section 13732.)
This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of
Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to
create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a
family justice center, as specified.
This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the
law and expands the reach for whom services will be
provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence,
but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence,
sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking,
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
3
cyber-bullying, and human trafficking. This bill also
allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law
enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare
personnel.
This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied
services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.
This bill requires each Family Justice Center to develop
policies and procedures to enhance the safety of the
victims and professionals at the FJC. The provisions of
the bill sunset on January 1, 2014 requires each family
justice center shall maintain an informed client consent
policy and shall be in compliance with all state and
federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the types of
information and documents that may be in a victim's file,
including, but not limited to, medical and legal records.
Each family justice center shall have a designated privacy
officer to develop and oversee privacy policies and
procedures consistent with state and federal privacy laws
and the Fair Information Practice Principles. At no time
shall a victim be required to sign a client consent form to
share information in order to access services.
A victim's consent to share information pursuant to the
client consent policy shall not be construed as a waiver of
confidentiality or any privilege held by the victim or
family justice center professionals.
The Office of Privacy Protection in conjunction with the
four pilot centers, the National Family Justice Center
Alliance, and relevant stakeholders shall develop best
practices to ensure the privacy of all family justice
center clients and shall submit a report to the assembly
committee on Judiciary and to the Senate Committee on
Judiciary, no later than January 1, 2013, with
recommendations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/17/11)
City Attorney of San Diego
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
4
Community Service Programs Victim Assistance Programs
Family Justice Center Sonoma County
Family Justice Center Legal Network
Fresno Police Department Domestic Violence Unit
Office of the District Attorney County of Shasta
Office of the District Attorney of Stanislaus County
San Diego District Attorney
San Diego Police Department
Shasta Family Justice Center
Stanislaus Family Justice Center
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/17/11)
ACLU (unless amended)
Asian Women Speak-Asian and Pacific Islander Advocates
against
Domestic Violence
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Casa de Esperanza
Interval House Crisis Shelters & Centers for Victims of
Domestic Violence
Hermanas Latino Advocates Against Domestic Violence;
Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse (unless amended)
Rainbow Services
Salaam Middle Eastern Advocates Against Domestic Violence;
Slavic
Voices-Slavic advocates against Domestic Violence
The African American Network for Violence Free
Relationships
The Center Long Beach (LGBT victim support services)
Women Shelter of Long Beach
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states, this
bill defines Family Justice Centers in state law and
thereby recognize the growing trend toward innovative,
multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models
for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder
abuse, and human trafficking.
In addition, this bill clarifies that the current
protections of victim's confidentiality continue even if a
multi-disciplinary team is working with the victim to
enhance safety and support that there is no universal
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
5
waiver of confidentiality in relation to third parties not
involved in the safety services being provided.
Family Justice Centers are a growing trend of providing
domestic violence, elder abuse and sexual assault services
but there are no standards set for what a family justice
center should offer no uniformity, �and] no standards on
confidentiality.
The sponsor of this bill, the National Family Justice
Center Alliance, notes that "the California Legislature has
recognized Child Advocacy Centers, Domestic Violence
Fatality Review Teams, and other forms of
multi-disciplinary intervention in family violence but has
never recognized Family Justice Centers." The sponsor
argues that the purpose of the Family Justice Center is to
bring all of the services for these vulnerable victims
under one roof. The sponsor contends that "victims are
often required to travel from location to location to seek
services that are scattered through a community or region.
They have to tell their story over and over again to staff
members representing agencies, such as, law enforcement,
courts, civil legal, medical, transportation, housing,
social services, mental health, rehabilitation, financial
assistance, and many more. The criminal justice system
unintentionally makes it easy for victims to become
frustrated and ultimately stop seeking help. Faced with so
many obstacles, victims often return to their abuser rather
than obtaining the necessary services."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : In opposition to the bill, the
Partnership to End Domestic Violence (Partnership) has
several concerns about authorizing local governments to
establish the Family Justice Center (FJC) model. The
Partnership argues that, "California should be consistent
with Federal statute and not promote, define or authorize
the establishment of a Family Justice Center model over
other models as SB 557 would do if passed. Although SB 557
is intended to promote victim safety and batterer
accountability by defining Family Justice Centers in state
statute, the Partnership strongly believes that the
decision to establish Family Justice Centers, or any other
type of multi-agency service-delivery program, should
reside at the local level. Because a majority of Family
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
6
Justice Centers are primarily led by members of the
criminal justice systems, it is crucial that cities and
counties continue to seek input and consultation for
community-based victim services providers, including
representatives from domestic violence crisis and advocacy
centers. We have heard from local advocates that, 'One
size does not fit all.' For example, rather than a
one-stop shop, San Francisco has opted not to establish an
FJC, based on local DV program input and desire to
coordinate services and work to build mutually respectful
relationships with the Criminal Legal System, but keep
their services separate and equal."
The Partnership has also expressed concerns regarding the
availability of funding. The partnership states that, "In
communities where FJCs have been created, local providers
of domestic violence services and shelters are reporting
having to compete with FJCs for available funds. While this
bill does not seek funding for FJCs, service providers know
that there will be future attempts at tapping into already
thin funding available for services to crime victims which
could divert funding from local non-profits to cities and
counties. The passage of SB 557 would appear to be a state
endorsement of a Family Justice Center Model, which will
lead to future collaborations that are more innovative or
locally relevant to lose out because they are not in state
statute. While we have seen some successful Family Justice
Centers, there are many that have problematic practices,
such as background checks and arrest of victims with
warrants, and violation of victims' rights to
confidentiality and privilege. Furthermore, as a statewide
coalition representing many groups, including
multidisciplinary, multiservice agencies, it is a direct
conflict of interest for the Partnership to promote one
service model over another."
RJG:do 5/17/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 557
Page
7
CONTINUED