BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
2
9
SB 1299 (Wright) 9
As Amended April 16, 2012
Hearing date: April 24, 2012
Government Code
JM:dl
VICTIMS OF CRIME COMPENSATION PROGRAM
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 2413 (Spitzer) - Ch. 571, Stats. 2006
AB 105 (Cohn) - Ch. 539, Stats. 2006
SB 972 (Poochigian) - Ch. 238, Stats. 2005
SB 631 (McPherson) - Ch. 223, Stats. 2004
SB 1423 (Chesbro) - Ch. 1141, Stats. 2002
AB 2898 (Bowler) - Ch. 1077, Stats. 1996
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; California
Commission on Aging; Crime Victims United of California
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD A COUNTY SOCIAL WORKER BE AUTHORIZED TO FILE A CLAIM WITH
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE
OR ELDER ABUSE?
SHOULD CHANGES IN VICTIMS' COMPENSATION REIMBURSEMENT RATES NOT
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageB
APPLY TO SERVICES PROVIDED FOR EXPENSES OR "LOSSES" INCURRED UP
TO SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RATE CHANGES?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD REIMBURSEMENT BE MADE FOR AN EXPENSE CLAIM SUBMITTED MORE
THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED BY THE VICTIM IF
THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED AS A DIRECT LOSS OF A CRIME FOR WHICH
AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED AND APPROVED?
SHOULD A FOR-PROFIT AGENCY BE ELIGIBLE TO BE A QUALIFIED MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDER?
PURPOSE
The purposes of this bill are 1) to provide that a social worker
can submit a claim to the Victims of Crime Program on behalf of
the victim of child abuse or elder abuse who cannot file the
claim; 2) to provide that rate changes shall not affect
reimbursement for services provided for losses incurred within
six months of the changes; 3) to provide that a claim for
expenses can be paid for expenses incurred more than three years
prior to the claim if the expenses were incurred as a direct
result of the crime for which an application was approved; and;
4) provide that a for-profit agency may be eligible to be a
qualified mental health services provider.
Existing provisions in the California Constitution state that
all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity
shall have the right to restitution from the perpetrators of
these crimes. Restitution shall be ordered in every case unless
compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary. The
Legislature shall adopt provisions to implement this section
during the calendar year following adoption of this section.
(Ca. Const. Art. 1 � 28(b).)
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageC
Existing law states legislative intent that a victim of crime
who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a
crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant
convicted of that crime. (Pen. Code � 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).)
Existing law directs the court to order a defendant to make
restitution to the victim or victims of the defendant's crime.
The court shall order full restitution for the losses caused by
the defendant's crime unless the court finds and states
compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so. (Pen.
Code � 1202.4, subd. (f).)
Existing law creates the Victims of Crime Program, administered
by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims
Board<1>, to reimburse victims of crime for the pecuniary losses
they suffer as a direct result of criminal acts.
Indemnification is made from the Restitution Fund, which is
continuously appropriated to the California Victim Compensation
and Government Claims Board for these purposes. (Gov. Code ��
13950-13968; note that �� 13969 and .2, .5, and .7 related to a
one-time 9/11/01 payment and are repealed effective 1/1/04.)
Existing law authorizes reimbursement to a victim for "�t]he
medical or medical related expenses incurred by the victim?."
(Gov. Code 13957, subd. (a)(1).)
Existing law provides that the total award to or on behalf of
each victim or derivative victim<2>, may not exceed $35,000,
except that this amount may be increased to $70,000 if federal
funds for that increase are available. (Gov. Code � 13957,
subd. (b).)
Existing law (Gov. Code � 13957, subd. (a).) provides that the
Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board (VCBCB - board)
---------------------------
<1> This entity was formerly known as the State Board of
Control. (Govt. Code � 13900 amended by AB 2491 - Ch. 1016,
Stats. 2000.)
<2> For purposes of brevity, the term "victim" includes a
"derivative victim" in this analysis where a distinction between
these terms is unnecessary.
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageD
may grant a crime victim's claim for pecuniary loss for the
following purposes:
Reimbursement for the amount of medical or medical-related
expenses incurred by the victim including, but not limited to,
eyeglasses, hearing aids, dentures, or any prosthetic device
taken, lost, or destroyed during the commission of the crime,
or the use of which became necessary as a direct result of the
crime.
Reimbursement for the amount of out-patient psychiatric,
psychological or other mental health counseling-related
expenses incurred by the victim as specified. The victim may
be reimbursed for the expense of his or her out-patient mental
health counseling in an amount not to exceed $10,000. Victims
who are not eligible for the up to $10,000 of reimbursement
may be eligible to be reimbursed for the expense of their
out-patient mental health counseling in an amount not to
exceed $3,000.
Reimbursement for the expenses of non-medical remedial care
and treatment rendered in accordance with a religious method
of healing recognized by state law.
Compensation equal to the loss of income or loss of support,
or both, that a victim incurs as a direct result of the
victim's injury or the victim's death.
Cash payment to, or on behalf of, the victim for job
retraining or similar employment-oriented services.
Reimbursement for the expense of installing or increasing
residential security, not to exceed $1,000, with respect to a
crime that occurred in the victim's residence, upon
verification by law enforcement to be necessary for the
personal safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment
provider to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the
victim.
Reimbursement for the expense of renovating or retrofitting a
victim's residence or a vehicle, or both, to make the
residence, the vehicle, or both, accessible or the vehicle
operational by a victim upon verification that the expense is
medically necessary for a victim who is permanently disabled
as a direct result of the crime, whether the disability is
partial or total.
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageE
Cash payment or reimbursement not to exceed $2,000 to a victim
for expenses incurred in relocating if the expenses are
determined by law enforcement to be necessary for the personal
safety of the victim or by a mental health treatment provider
to be necessary for the emotional well-being of the victim.
The board, under compelling circumstances, may reimbursement
for moving expenses to the same victim for a second crime if
both of the following conditions are met:
� The crime occurs more than three years from the date
of the crime giving rise to the initial relocation cash
payment or reimbursement; and,
� The crime does not involve the same offender.
Existing law authorizes the board to "establish maximum rates
and service limitations for medical and medical-related
services, and for mental health and counseling services?" (Gov.
Code � 13957.2)
Existing law provides that the board shall approve or deny
applications, based on recommendations of the board staff,
within an average of 90 calendar days and no later than 180
calendar days of acceptance by the board or victim center.
(Gov. Code � 13958.)
If the board does not meet the 90-day average standard
prescribed in this subdivision, the board shall,
thereafter, report to the Legislature, on a quarterly
basis, its progress and its current average time of
processing applications. These quarterly reports shall
continue until the board meets the 90-day average standard
for two consecutive quarters. . (Gov. Code � 13958, subd.
(a).)
If the board fails to approve or deny an individual
application within 180 days of the date it is accepted,
pursuant to this subdivision, the board shall advise the
applicant and his or her representative, in writing, of the
reason for the failure to approve or deny the application.
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageF
. (Gov. Code � 13958, subd. (b).)
Existing law states the Legislature finds and declares that it
is in the public interest to assist residents of the State of
California in obtaining compensation for the pecuniary losses
they suffer as a direct result of criminal acts. (Gov. Code �
13950.)
Existing law (Gov. Code � 13951) defines the following terms:
"Crime" is a crime or public offense, wherever it
occurs, which would be a misdemeanor or a felony if the
crime had been committed in California by a competent
adult.
"Crime" includes an act of terrorism, committed against
a resident of the state, whether or not the act occurs
within California.
"Derivative victim" is one who suffers pecuniary loss as
a result of injury or death to a victim.
"Pecuniary loss" is an economic loss or expense
resulting from an injury or death to a victim of crime that
has not been and will not be reimbursed from any other
source.
"Victim" is a person who sustains injury or death as a
direct result of a crime.
Existing law provides than an application for compensation shall
be filed with the board in the manner determined by the board.
(Gov. Code � 13952, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that the application for compensation
shall be verified under penalty of perjury by the individual who
is seeking compensation, who may be the victim or an individual
seeking reimbursement for burial, funeral, or crime scene
clean-up expenses pursuant specified sections of the Government
Code. . (Gov. Code � 13952, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law (Gov. Code � 13955), with specified exceptions,
provides that persons eligible for compensation include a victim
or a person entitled to reimbursement for funeral, burial or
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageG
crime scene clean-up expenses, as specified:
Existing law sets out the following specific conditions
and requirements for victim compensation.
The crime occurred within California whether or not the
victim is a resident of California. This only applies when
the board determines that there are federal funds available
to the state for the compensation of crime victims.
Existing law states that except as provided by specified
sections of the Government Code, a person shall be eligible for
compensation when all of the following requirements are met
(Gov. Code � 13955):
The person from whom compensation is being sought is any of
the following (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (a).):
� A victim (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (a)(1).) or a
derivative victim. (Gov. Code � 13955, subd.
(a)(2).)
� A person who is entitled to reimbursement for
funeral, burial or crime scene cleanup expenses
pursuant to specified sections of the Government
Code. (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (a)(3).)
� Either of the following conditions is met (Gov.
Code � 13955, subd. (b)): The crime occurred within
California whether or not the victim is a resident
of California. This only applies when the Board
determines that there are federal funds available to
the state for the compensation of crime victims.
(Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (b)(1).)
� Whether or not the crime occurred within the
State of California, the victim was any of the
following: (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (b)(2).):
o A resident of the state.
(Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageH
o A member of the military stationed in
California. (Gov. Code � 13955, subd.
(b)(2)(B).)
o A family member living with a member
of the military station in California.
(Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (b)(2)(C).)
� If compensation is being sought for
derivative victim, the derivative victim is a
resident of California or the resident of another
state who is any of the following (Gov. Code �
13955, subd. (c)): At the time of the crimes was
the parent, grandparent, sibling, spouse, child or
grandchild of the victim. (Gov. Code � 13955,
subd. (c)(1).)
� At the time of the crime was living in the
household of the victim. (Gov. Code � 13955,
subd. (c)(2).)
� At the time of the crime was a person who
had previously lived in the house of the victim
for a person of not less than two years in
relationship substantially similar to a
previously listed relationship. (Gov. Code �
13955, subd. (c)(3).)
� Another family member of the victim
including, but not limited to, the victim's
fianc� or fianc�e, and who witnessed the
crime. (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (c)(4).)
� Is the primary caretaker of a minor victim,
but was not the primary caretaker at the time of
the crime. (Gov. Code � 13955, subd. (c)(5).)
Other
specified requirements apply. (Gov.
Code � 13955, subds. (d)-(g).)
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageI
Existing law allows the following victims may be reimbursed for
outpatient mental health counseling in an amount not to exceed
$5,000. (Gov. Code � 13957, subd. (a)(2)(B).):
A derivative victim not eligible for reimbursement in
the category allowing up to $10,000; and,
A direct victim of the crime of unlawful sexual
intercourse, where the victim is under 16 years old and the
defendant is over 21 years old; and,
A minor who suffers emotional injury as a direct result
of witnessing a violent crime and who is not eligible for
reimbursement of the costs of outpatient mental health
counseling. To be eligible for reimbursement under this
clause, the minor must have been in close proximity to the
victim when he or she witnessed the crime.
Existing law provides that when a victim dies as a result of
crime, the board may reimburse any individual who voluntarily,
and without anticipation of personal gain, pay or assumes the
obligation to pay any of the following expenses. . (Gov. Code �
13957, subd. (a)(9).):
The medical expenses incurred as a direct result of the
crime in an amount not to exceed the rates or limitations
established by the board.
When the crime occurs in a residence, the reasonable
costs to clean the scene of the crime in an amount not to
exceed $1,000.
The funeral and burial expenses incurred as a direct
result of the crimes, not to exceed $7,500.
Existing law provides that the total award to or on behalf of
each victim may not exceed $35,000, except that this amount may
be increased to $70,000 if federal funds for that increase are
available. . (Gov. Code � 13957, subd. (b).)
Existing law provides that the board shall grant a hearing to an
applicant who believes he or she is entitled to compensation, to
contest a staff recommendation to deny compensation. . (Gov.
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageJ
Code � 13959, subd. (a).)
Existing law authorizes the board to order reconsideration of
its decision on its own motion or on the written request of the
applicant. The board may not consider any request for
consideration more than 30 days after personal delivery, or 60
calendar days after the mailing, of the original decision. . .
(Gov. Code � 13959, subd. (i).)
Existing law provides that no reimbursement may be made for any
expense that is submitted more than three years after it is
incurred by the victim. However, reimbursement may be made for
an expense submitted more than three years after the date it is
incurred if the victim has affirmed the debt and is liable for
the debt at the time the expense is submitted for reimbursement,
or has paid the expense as a direct result of a crime for which
a timely application has been filed. (Gov. Code � 13957.7,
subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that compensation made pursuant to this
chapter may be on a one-time or periodic basis. If periodic,
the board may increase, reduce, or terminate the amount of
compensation according to the applicant's need, subject to the
maximum limits provided in this chapter. (Gov. Code � 13957.7,
subd. (b).)
This bill provides that a county social worker who represents a
child victim or elder abuse victim may file a compensation claim
on behalf of the victim if the victim is unable to do so. The
social worker shall not be required to provide personal
information about himself or herself as part of the application.
This bill provides that changes in reimbursement rates shall not
apply to reimbursement for losses incurred up to six months
following adoption of the changes.
This bill provides that a for-profit agency may apply to be a
qualified mental health service provider to victims.
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageK
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageL
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageM
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The bill does a number of things to address problems
encountered by crime victims, their families and
providers of service, by the failure of the California
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
(board) to deliver consistent and timely financial
help.
2. Changes in this Bill to Victims of Crime Claim Procedures
and Policies
As introduced, this bill included sweeping and numerous changes
to many policies and procedures in the Victims of Crime
Compensation Program. After discussions among the author's
staff, the board and representatives of victims' organizations,
the bill was amended to include provisions upon which all
parties could agree.
The provisions in the bill would assist victims in specific
circumstances. First, the bill authorizes a county social
worker to file a claim on behalf of victim of child abuse or
elder abuse. Completing an application for compensation and
assembling necessary documentation can be a daunting task for
any crime victim. Victims of elder abuse and child abuse face
particular difficulties in this regard.
Victims' advocates have argued that changing reimbursement rates
can make it difficult to find and retain service providers. The
bill extends the time before rate changes take effect, likely
easing the process of obtaining needed services for victims.
Similarly, allowing victims to obtain services from for-profit
entities could assist victims in finding and retaining
professional services.
3. Ambiguity and Lack of Clarity in Provision Concerning
Effective Date of any Change in Rates of Reimbursement or
Service Limits
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageN
The bill provides: "Any changes in maximum rates or service
shall not affect payment or reimbursement of losses incurred
prior to six months after the adoption of any changes by
regulations." (SB 1299, as Amended 4/16/2012, p. 16, lines
12-15.) This provision is unclear, particularly as to what
"losses" means in this context.
The author's office has informed Committee staff the provision
is intended to apply to situations where a person has contracted
for services or has begun treatment with a provider prior to
changes in reimbursement rates or service limitations, such as
maximum visits for therapy. This could cause a hardship or
serious inconvenience. For example, a victim has been in
physical therapy for injuries suffered in a robbery. The victim
has established a treatment plan and made appointments to
address pressing injuries. A change in reimbursement rates or
limits on therapy appointments could seriously disrupt the
treatment, perhaps producing negative outcomes.
The intention of this bill is to provide that where a rate
change or service limit is adopted, the changes shall not affect
payments or services for six months after the changes are made.
It is suggested that the bill be amended to address the
intention of the author.
SHOULD THE PROVISION IN THE BILL STATING THAT CHANGES IN
REIMBURSEMENT RATES AND SERVICE LIMITS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE FOR SIX
MONTHS AFTER A LOSS HAS BEEN INCURRED BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE
INTENT OF THE AUTHOR THAT CHANGES WILL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR
SIX MONTHS AFTER AN EXPENSE HAS BEEN INCURRED?
4. Audit of the Victims of Crime Program
December 2008, the California State Auditor Report on the Victim
Compensation Program
The report included the following highlights:
From fiscal years 2001-02 through 2004-05, program
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageO
compensation payments decreased from $123.9 million to $61.6
million-a 50 percent decline.
Despite the significant decline in payments, the costs to
support the program have increased.
These costs make up a significant portion of the Restitution
Fund disbursements-ranging from 26 percent to 42 percent
annually.
The program did not always process applications and bills as
promptly or efficiently as it could have. We noted staff took
longer than 180 days to process applications in two instances
out of 49 and longer than 90 days to pay bills for 23 of 77
paid bills we examined.
The program's numerous problems with the transition to a new
application and bill processing system led to a reported
increase in complaints regarding delays in processing
applications and bills.
Some payments in CaRES appeared to be erroneous. Although
board staff provided explanations for the payments when we
brought the matter to their attention, the fact that they
were unaware of these items indicates an absence of controls
that would prevent erroneous payments.
The board lacks the necessary system documentation for
CaRES.
There are no benchmarks, performance measures, or formal
written procedures for workload management.
Despite the board's efforts to increase awareness of the
program, several victim witness assistance centers do not
think the public is generally aware of program services.
Further, the board has not established a comprehensive
outreach plan.
Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board Response to the
Audit
In a response letter to the audit report by the California State
Auditor, the board stated:
(More)
The audit finds, and we agree, the �board] can make
improvements in processing time for applications and
payments, developing specific verification procedures,
and maintaining documentation.
The �board] concurs with the recommendation to develop
written procedures and time frames for the appeals
process. A new procedure manual, as discussed below,
will include this subject.
The board's ability to process applications and pay
bills in a timely manner is dependent upon the timely
submittal of key information from verifying entities.
To improve �receipt of] such information, the �board]
plans to develop a new procedure manual, �with]
specific direction to staff for processing
applications and bills in CaRES. The manual will
include specific time frames for follow up with
non-responsive verifying entities. ?�T]he �board] has
�told] ? service providers the importance of prompt
submittal of requested information to the board so
that �payments can be timely processed]. Similarly,
we are reaching out to law enforcement during our
numerous law enforcement outreach seminars. (Victim
Compensation and Government Claims Board: It Has
Begun Improving the Victim Compensation Program, but
More Remains to Be Done. California State Auditor
Report 2008-113 at 70, 71 (December 2008).)
2012 Update of by the State Auditor of the Victims Compensation
Program
On January 12, 2012, the State Auditor published an extensive
update of its audit of the Victims Compensation Program. The
updated audit noted that many of the recommendations from the
2008 audit report had not been implemented. The report included
the following highlights:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(More)
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageQ
|From January 2005 through October 2010, the State Auditor's |
|Office issued 98 reports for audits of state agencies requested |
|through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, legislation, or as |
|a result of an investigation. Based on the most recent responses |
|from state agencies, we reported the following: |
| |
| |
| There were 990 recommendations to the audited state agencies in |
| those reports. Although |
| state agencies implemented approximately 83 percent of our |
| recommendations, we identified |
| 168 recommendations made to 32 state agencies that had been |
| outstanding at least one year, |
| of which 97 were included in last year's Accountability Act report |
| published in January 2011. |
| |
| |
| Based on the most recent responses obtained from state agencies, |
| 40 of the 168 |
| recommendations outstanding at least one year, and some as long as |
| five years, have |
| now been fully implemented. |
| |
| Although some agencies reported that they will begin or |
| continue fully implementing the recommendations within six |
| months, others did not provide an implementation date. Still |
| other agencies either reported that they do not plan to |
| fully implement certain recommendations for several years or |
| they will not implement the recommendations at all. For |
| nearly 16 percent of the recommendations that have not been |
| fully implemented, the department responsible has expressed |
| that it will not implement the recommendation. |
| |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO IMPROVEMENTS STILL NEED TO BE MADE IN THE OPERATION OF THE
VICTIMS OF CRIME PROGRAM IN ORDER TO BETTER SERVE VICTIMS?
DO THE PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL PROVIDE SOME RELIEF OR BENEFITS
TO CRIME VICTIMS SEEKING ASSISTANCE FROM THE PROGRAM?
SB 1299 (Wright)
PageR
5. Fund Balance Issues
Disagreements about the condition of the Victims of Crime Fund
are common. Some of the confusion or disagreement about the
fund can be traced to the fact that the cash balance in the fund
does not reflect the payments the board has approved but not
made and payments and expense that the board anticipates it will
need to pay over the months ahead.
The Legislative Analyst has noted in a recent e-mail to
interested parties "that there is a significant difference
between the fund balance reported in the budget ($28.4 million
at the end of 10-11, $19.3 million projected for the end of
11-12) and the cash balance reported by the Controller ($62.2
million as of 3/8/12). This was apparently due, at least in
part, to an accounting error by DGS<3> (whom the Board contracts
with for accounting services. DGS has reviewed everything and
has accounted for most if not all of the discrepancy."
***************
---------------------------
<3> Department of General Services