BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
3
5
SB 1352 (Corbett) 2
As Amended March 26, 2012
Hearing date: April 17, 2012
Penal Code
AA:mc
CHILD ABUSE:
CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS
HISTORY
Source: Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Teachers Association; CALICO; National
Association of Social Workers, California Chapter;
California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS BE AUTHORIZED IN STATE LAW, AS
SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to statutorily authorize the
establishment of "Child Advocacy Centers" to coordinate the
investigation and prosecution of child abuse, as specified.
Current law states that the "Legislature intends that in each
county the law enforcement agencies and the county welfare or
probation department shall develop and implement cooperative
arrangements in order to coordinate existing duties in
connection with the investigation of suspected child abuse or
neglect cases. The local law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction over a (mandated child abuse or neglect case) . . .
shall report to the county welfare or probation department that
it is investigating the case within 36 hours after starting its
investigation. The county welfare department or probation
department shall, in cases where a minor is a victim of (child
molestation, as specified) . . . and a (dependency) petition
has been filed . . . with regard to the minor, evaluate what
action or actions would be in the best interest of the child
victim. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the county
welfare department or probation department shall submit in
writing its findings and the reasons therefor to the district
attorney on or before the completion of the investigation. The
written findings and the reasons therefor shall be delivered or
made accessible to the defendant or his or her counsel . . . ."
(Penal Code � 11166.3(a).)
Current law further provides that the "local law enforcement
agency having jurisdiction over a
(reported child abuse or neglect) case . . . shall report to the
district office of the State Department of Social Services any
case reported under this section if the case involves a
(specified) facility . . . and the licensing of the facility has
not been delegated to a county agency. The law enforcement
agency shall send a copy of its investigation report and any
other pertinent materials to the licensing agency upon the
request of the licensing agency." (Penal Code � 11166.3(b).)
This bill would add the following provisions to this section of
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageC
law:
This bill would state that a "multidisciplinary approach for the
response to allegations of child abuse and neglect has been
found most effective and least traumatic when coordinated
through a child advocacy center. Each county is authorized to
establish a child advocacy center to coordinate the
investigation and prosecution of child abuse."
This bill further would state that a "child advocacy center is a
child-focused, facility-based program in which representatives
from many disciplines, including law enforcement, child
protection, prosecution, medical and mental health, and victim
and child advocacy, work together to conduct interviews and make
team decisions about the investigation, treatment, management,
and prosecution of child abuse cases. This multidisciplinary
team approach protects victims of child abuse from multiple
interviews, results in a more complete understanding of case
issues and provides the most effective child- and family-focused
system response possible."
This bill would provide that if "a county establishes a child
advocacy center, to maximize the center's effectiveness, each
child advocacy center shall consist of a representative from the
district attorney's office, the sheriff's department, the police
department, and child protective services. Members may also
include representatives from medical and mental health, victim
advocacy, and any other agency relevant to the identification,
investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse."
This bill further would provide that to "further a
multidisciplinary response, each county may develop an
interagency protocol agreement for the collaborative
investigation of child abuse and neglect signed by the district
attorney's office, the sheriff's department or police
department, or both those departments, and child protective
services. Any other agency relevant to the identification,
investigation, prosecution, and treatment of child abuse,
including, but not limited to, medical and mental health, and
victim advocacy, may also sign the protocol. Any member of the
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageD
child advocacy center shall sign the protocol."
This bill would provide that if a county enters into an
interagency protocol agreement signed as described above, "the
agreement shall define the county's multidisciplinary team, the
victims that the multidisciplinary team serve, and the policies
and practices directing how the multidisciplinary team will work
together to accomplish the following:
(A) Respond effectively to reports of child abuse and
neglect.
(B) Collect high-quality information to ensure children are
protected and offenders held accountable.
(C) Keep the needs of victims and their families at the
forefront of the investigation.
(D) Connect victims and families to necessary medical,
therapeutic, and legal support."
This bill would require that, on "or before January 1, 2015, the
Senate Office of Research shall submit a report regarding the
number of counties that have established a child advocacy center
to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of child abuse.
The report shall also include, with respect to the members of
each child advocacy center, a determination as to which groups
are represented, and whether an interagency protocol agreement
has been established." This bill would provide that this
reporting requirement sunset January 1, 2019, pursuant to
Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, and that this report be
submitted in compliance with Government Code section 9795.
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
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageE
"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
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
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageF
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
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Over half of the counties in California do not have a
Child Advocacy Center, which leaves many victims
without the appropriate follow-up and therapeutic
services.
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageG
In addition, lack of coordination between all agencies
involved in child abuse cases can compromises the
investigation and force the victim to describe the
details of the abuse repeatedly.
In California's 58 counties, there are 19 accredited
centers, eight associate centers and more than two
dozen counties that have already developed
multi-disciplinary teams.
In 1985, the first Child Advocacy Center opened in
Alabama. In 2008, child protective services
investigated more than 400,000 cases of child abuse in
the United States. Currently, the Child Abuse and
Neglect Reporting Act requires child welfare and law
enforcement agencies to work together and cross
reference incident reports of child abuse victims and
child neglect victims.
Today, thousands of Child Advocacy Centers exist and
more than 700 have accreditation and/or membership
with the National Children Alliance.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would put into statute certain assertions and
definitions concerning the effectiveness of child advocacy
centers in responding to allegations of child abuse and neglect.
This bill would require that if a county establishes a child
advocacy center, certain representatives be part of that center.
This bill would authorize, but not require, counties to develop
interagency protocols for the collaborative investigation of
child abuse and neglect, as specified. This bill would require
the Senate Office of Research to produce a report regarding
counties that have established these centers, as specified.
3. Existing Authority to Create Child Advocacy Centers
Counties currently can do what this bill proposes without the
express statutory authority proposed by this bill. The author
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageH
and/or members of this Committee may wish to address the need
for this bill, and the effect of codifying this authority as
proposed by this bill. In addition, members may wish to discuss
the effect of mandating some of the composition of child
advocacy centers as proposed by this bill.
WHAT IS THE NEED FOR AND EFFECT OF CODIFYING THE AUTHORITY FOR
COUNTIES TO ESTABLISH CHILD ADVOCACY CENTERS?
(More)
SHOULD THE COMPOSITION OF THESE ADVOCACY CENTERS BE MANDATED BY
STATE LAW? IF THIS BILL IS ENACTED, WOULD EXISTING ADVOCACY
CENTERS BE IMPACTED BY ITS PROVISIONS?
4. Child Advocacy Centers -- Background
The development of child advocacy centers as an effective way to
address child sexual abuse cases began in the early 1980s. As
explained in a 1996 scholarly article about these centers:
The journey from the earliest recognition of child
abuse to the current utilization of facility based,
multidisciplinary approaches to child abuse represents
a sea change in the world of child protection. The
Children's Advocacy Center model offers a
comprehensive approach to working with child abuse
victims that places the needs of the child first,
while making certain that all members of the
multidisciplinary team are fully engaged. "The
purpose of a Children's Advocacy Center is to provide
a comprehensive, culturally competent,
multidisciplinary response to allegations of child
abuse in a dedicated, child friendly setting." . . .
In the early 1980's several new programs emerged to
try and deal effectively with child sexual abuse
cases. Most notably was the founding of the National
Children's Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Alabama, by
the elected District Attorney, Robert E. "Bud" Cramer,
Jr.
. . .
The organization of a Children's Advocacy Center
offers a community a mechanism for providing services
to children who have been abused in a facility where
the various competing demands of major institutions
can be brought together to provide services to the
child and family.
(More)
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageJ
One-stop Child Advocacy Centers (CAC) are designed to
help alleviate many of the inherent conflicts in the
current child protection system. Child Advocacy
Centers' number one goal is to reduce trauma to the
child abuse victim by coordinating a child's interview
to include professionals from multiple agencies, which
can reduce the number of interviews and improve the
quality of the investigation. They help children
avoid the trauma of repeating their story at various
stops along the legal and judicial path.
Mr. Cramer . . . founded the National Children's
Alliance (originally incorporated as the National
Network of Children's Advocacy Centers). This
non-profit national membership organization was
charged with developing standards for Children's
Advocacy Centers and ensuring that programs met the
standards. A primary function of National Children's
Alliance is offering a comprehensive accreditation
program to insure that the member programs function
within the NCA standards.
In the late 1990's, the work of Children's Advocacy
Center programs was heralded by the Department of
Justice as the number one recommendation for improving
services to child victims. The chapter on services to
child victims from New Directions from the Field
published by the Department of Justice provides strong
support for the development of Children's Advocacy
Center.
One of the most important innovations of this decade
in providing services to child victims has been the
proliferation of Children's Advocacy Centers.
Children's Advocacy Centers use a multidisciplinary
team approach to reduce the number of interviews
abused children must endure and to deliver
intervention services that are coordinated. Having
law enforcement professionals, prosecutors, medical
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageK
and mental health personnel, and child advocates
working together ensures that children are not
revictimized by the system and that they are provided
with the best possible services. Similar programs
should be created in every community.
While in 1992 there were only 22 members of National
Children's Alliance, significant growth has occurred
and in 2006 more than 600 programs are members. All
of these member centers have achieved either associate
or accredited member status based on an accrediting
process that applies the ten standards of National
Children's Alliance. "A child
appropriate/child-friendly setting and a
multidisciplinary team are essential for
accomplishment of the mission of Children's Advocacy
Centers and for accredited membership in National
Children's Alliance."<1>
Members may wish to discuss how the centers described in this
bill would relate to the National Children's Alliance and
whether they would meet the accreditation requirements of the
Alliance.
***************
---------------------------
---------------------------
<1> Children's Advocacy Centers: Making a Difference One Child
at a Time, Nancy Chandler (28 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 315,
Fall 2006).
SB 1352 (Corbett)
PageL