If enacted, AB 662 would impose new obligations on local agencies to actively manage and report on restitution payments. This interactive tracking system could empower victims, keeping them informed about the payment actions being taken regarding their restitution orders. However, the bill does potentially increase the administrative burden on counties, as they would need to integrate these new duties into their existing frameworks without resulting reimbursement from the state, as the bill specifies no reimbursement is required for these new obligations.
Assembly Bill 662, introduced by Assembly Member Choi, amends Sections 2085.5 and 2085.6 of the Penal Code to enhance the tracking and collection of restitution orders owed by prisoners. The bill mandates that county agencies overseeing restitution collection must not only track payments but also provide monthly notifications to individuals responsible for payment and quarterly statements to victims if contact information is available. The intent of this legislation is to improve the accountability and transparency of the restitution process for victims, ensuring they are aware of the status of payments due to them.
The sentiment surrounding AB 662 appears to be supportive, particularly among victim advocacy groups who see this as a necessary reform to ensure victims receive their due compensation in a timely and accountable manner. Advocates argue that many victims are left in the dark regarding restitution payments, and enhancing communication and tracking would rectify this issue. However, some concerns have been raised about the administrative challenges this could impose on counties, particularly regarding additional workload without state support.
Notable points of contention lie in the financial implications for local governments. While the bill aims to better serve victims of crime, it lacks provisions for state reimbursement for costs incurred by counties in implementing these new duties. This has raised concerns about whether counties can effectively execute these responsibilities without additional funding. Additionally, providers of community corrections might express concerns over the extensive administrative requirements mandated by the bill.