COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

May 11, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

May 17, 2004

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #8

A.

Resolution in support of S. 155 (Feinstein), Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of S. 155 (Feinstein), Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): Goal 7—Maintain and enhance the public safety for all residents and visitors

BACKGROUND:

S. 155 (Feinstein) would authorize approximately $650 million of the next five years to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs. It would also amend Federal criminal code to prohibit various criminal street gang-related activities including participation in a criminal street gang by committing a predicate crime (and act, threat, conspiracy or attempted act such as murder, gambling or drug manufacturing) in furtherance of the activities of such gang, to gain entrance to or to maintain or increase position in the gang, or for the gang's benefit.

Senator Feinstein sponsored similar legislation during the 108^th Congress—S. 1735. That legislation received opposition from various groups including the ACLU for assorted provisions. Staff has been unable to find similar opposition to S. 155.

Related legislation, H.R. 1279 (Forbes) is opposed by many Democrats. While similar to S. 155, H.R. 1279 establishes new mandatory minimum sentences. Identical to Senator Feinstein’s anti-gang bill from 2003, H.R. 970 (Schiff) was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee.

DISCUSSION:

S. 155 would allocate $50 million per year to support criminal gang enforcement teams. $50 million per year will be use for grants to community-based programs for crime prevention and intervention services for areas designated high-intensity interstate gang activity areas. An additional $150 million over five years will be used for assorted purposes including the gang prosecution coordination and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sheriff Don Horsley supports S. 155. Chief Probation Officer Loren Buddress recommends support. He notes that the Probation Department has seen an increase in gang-related violence, which could be better addressed by the grant resources. In contrast, District Attorney Jim Fox notes concern about the attempt to make this a federal crime, but he supports the additional resources.

The Board’s Legislative Committee has reviewed S. 155 and recommends a support position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown, but potential revenue to local governments.

B.

Resolution in support of SB 1018 (Simitian) and AB 1605 (Wolk) regarding elder and dependent adult abuse

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 1018 (Simitian) and AB 1605 (Wolk) regarding elder and dependent adult abuse.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): Goal 8—Help vulnerable people—the aged, disabled, mentally ill, at-risk youth and others—achieve a better quality of life

BACKGROUND:

Nearly identical, SB 1018 and AB 1605 would make bank and credit union employees mandated reporters of suspected financial abuse against elderly and dependant adults. Failure to report financial abuse could subject the bank or credit union to civil penalties currently imposed on other mandated reporters of elder or dependant adult abuse. The bills would also provide liability protection from erroneous reports of abuse.

Under current law, the Elder and Dependant Adult Civil Protection Act (EDACPA) requires mandated reporters who witness or know of physical or financial abuse of elder or dependant adults to report such abuse. Mandated reporters include adult protective service workers, health practitioners, clergy, local law enforcement and care providers for the elderly or dependant adults. Failure to report abuse can result in a jail term no more than 6 months and a fine no greater than $1,000. For unreported abuse that results in death or great bodily injury, the failure to report could result in a jail term up to one year and/or a fine not to exceed $5,000. Current law immunizes mandated reporters (that do not knowingly make false reports) from liability as a result of erroneous reports.

In expanding the mandate reporter requirements to banks and credit unions, these bills would require reporting of only that person who has direct contact with or reviews/approves financial documents, records or transactions of the suspected victim and who, in their job, witnesses or knows of a transaction or other related matter that reasonably appears to be financial abuse. Failure to report such abuse would trigger the civil penalties described above. The bills would also extend current immunity protections to the mandated reporters of financial elder or dependant adult abuse.

DISCUSSION:

According to Senator Simitian, statewide Adult Protective Services recorded an average of 350 cases per month of substantiated elder and dependant adult financial abuse. The number of actual cases may be higher. The U.S. Special Committee on Aging estimates that 84% of elder abuse cases are not reported due to fear, embarrassment or lack of capacity. In San Mateo County, financial abuse is the most frequently reported abuse committed against seniors and dependant adults. In 2004, Adult Protective Services investigated 243 cases of financial abuse in the County. With diminished abilities to replace lost assets, many elderly and dependant adults are more significantly impacted by financial abuse. CWDA, the sponsors of the bills, notes that only 1 in 100 instances of financial abuse are reported.

Supporters argue that financial institutions like banks and credit unions are in the best position to witness financial abuse. With regular contact with elderly and dependant adult customer, bank tellers and other financial institution employees who facilitate transactions can identify suspicious activity. In addition, supporters note that early intervention can minimize if not forestall the loss of assets. Once lost, most assets are difficult to recover.

Some opponents express concern about the ability of their employees to make complicated assessments and determinations of possible financial abuse. While some employees have long relationships with some customers, many transactions are not based on a prior relationship and are often very brief—just a few minutes or even seconds. Despite the liability protections in the bills, opponents argue the bill requires their employees to “second guess” their customers and could subject them to litigation for erroneous reports. But they also note that the civil liability for failing to report elder/dependant adult financial abuse could also subject them to litigation and may cause “defensive reporting” and possible problems with age discrimination if an institution, responding to the requirement and liability, focuses additional monitoring on elderly customers

Supporters include District Attorney Jim Fox, the California Association of Counties (CSAC), the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA, the sponsor) and the California Sheriff’s Association (CSSA).

The Board’s Legislative Committee has reviewed SB 1018 and AB 1605 and recommends a support position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact

C.

Resolution in support of AB 450 (Yee), violent video games sales to minors

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 450 (Yee), violent video games sales to minors.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): Goal 6—Children grow up healthy in safe and supportive homes and neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND:

AB 450 would prohibit the sale or rental of violent video games, as defined, to persons who are 16 years of age or younger. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act may be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation.

This bill is sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Common Sense Media, and Girl Scout Councils of California. Similar legislation has been introduced in several states, including Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington, D.C.

Speaker Pro Tem Yee, also a child psychologist, introduced similar legislation last year to restrict children's access to first- and third-person shooter violent video games. The entertainment industry lobbied for months against then AB 1792, which resulted in the bill failing to pass by two votes in the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media.

DISCUSSION:

Since the early 1980s, the effects on children of playing violent electronic games have been studied. The results of these studies conclude that:

•

Playing violent video games has been found to account for a 13% to 22% increase in adolescents’ violent behavior.

•

Reducing time spent watching TV and playing video games to fewer than seven hours a week decreased verbal aggression by 50% and physical aggression by 40% among 3rd and 4th-graders.

•

Adolescents who are not “naturally aggressive,” but who spend a lot of time playing violent video games were almost ten times more likely to be involved in fights than other “non-aggressive” adolescents.

Some experts believe that certain features of newer gaming technology may increase the risk that children will be negatively affected. As players master a game, the content changes with increasing levels of difficulty and may depict more violence. Technologically savvy players can customize certain computer games by inserting images of real people and places to enhance the realism. An example that brought public attention to violent game play was a version of Doom created by the Columbine shooters to resemble the actual shooting at Columbine High.

The California State Commission on the Status of Women supports this bill because they believe it is keeps violent videos out of the hands of children, unless their parents purchase the videos for them. The act of reading a book or seeing a movie that includes violence is significantly different than playing a game where one decides to rape and kill a woman, decapitate a person of color, or target and "terminate" law enforcement officers. For example, the Grand Theft Auto game that 70% of teenage boys have played portrays the murder of women, minorities, the elderly and police officers. Of the 33 most popular games, 21% feature violence against women.

According to Mary Wiberg, Director of the State CSW, “The bill supports our concern about the potential danger of allowing children to willfully commit violent acts, even if only in a game.”

Ratings systems have been developed to help parents identify the age-appropriateness of video game content. Top-selling video games played on home consoles and personal computers are rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), as are games played on the Internet. The ESRB rating is age-based, with content descriptors for violence, blood and gore, language, lyrics, hate speech, nudity, sexual and suggestive themes, gambling, tobacco, and alcohol and drug use. A rating of M-Rated (Mature) suggests that the content is suitable for ages 17 and older and may contain more intense violence or language than Teen category, and may include mature sexual themes.

Mature-rated games are the fastest growing segment of the 10 billion-dollar video game industry; in fact, the video game industry’s voluntary rating system has not prevented children from gaining access to mature rated video games. According to the Federal Trade Commission, nearly 70% of 13-16 year-olds are able to purchase M-rated (Mature) video games, which are designed for adults. 92% of children play video or computer games, of which about 40% are rated M.

Opponents argue that the bill is unconstitutional because it regulates protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. They state that the legislation will restrict a minor's access to video games that are neither obscene nor harmful under California law or the First Amendment. Amendments have been made to the bill to clarify that it does not prohibit parents from purchasing video games for their children if they so choose.

Supporters of the bill believe that new regulations would help parents to make informed purchasing decisions.

The Board’s Legislative Committee has reviewed AB 450 and recommends a support position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.