California has taken a step forward in preventing seniors from getting fleeced by those who would take advantage of them.

Senate Bill 692, authored by state Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this month, will enable seniors to request California Department of Justice background checks for home caregivers who assist them with personal and domestic care duties like bathing and housekeeping.

Nancy Schulz, program manager of the Napa County Public Authority — which maintains a registry of In-Home Support Services caregivers who serve low-income seniors — said IHSS caregivers are already subject to a California Department of Justice background check. But she said the new law will target about 3,000 non-IHSS Napa County caregivers who are not subject to the same scrutiny.

According to prosecutors and senior advocates, the elderly are vulnerable to former convicts who view the growing in-home care industry as an opportunity to find easy marks for financial crimes. They are pleased about the new law, but say more needs to be done.

“This legislation is talking about those who are in between IHSS and (seniors) who can afford private care. ... It applies to anyone who could ask to have their provider screened. While convictions are considered public record, usually, the dissemination of records is confidential and that’s a part of the regulations that need to be worked through,” said Schulz.

Under the new law, seniors will pay for the screenings of their potential caregivers. But local senior advocates — like Suzanne Shiff and Terri Restelli-Deits of the Area Agency on Aging Serving Napa and Solano — worry that seniors on tight budgets might not request Department of Justice background checks, which can cost around $100.

“I think we need statewide legislation, but I fear that when you put the responsibility on the seniors to pay for that, not everyone is able to pay and they may not do it,” Restelli-Deits said.

Although SB 692 does not facilitate FBI screenings — which senior advocates say would prevent many caregivers with criminal records from traveling from state to state to work in the home health field — Betty Rhodes of the Napa County Commission on Aging called the legislation “a step in the right direction.”

Rhodes, one of several local elder advocates who have been working on requiring background checks for caregivers, said the new law will provide some protection for local seniors — one of the fastest-growing local populations.

Napa County has the second-highest percentage of residents age 85 and older in California, and its percentage of residents age 65 and older is likely to double over the next 20 years or so, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census.

The number of local elder caregivers is also expected to grow rapidly, signaling needs for more stringent laws that will protect seniors who are receiving care in their homes.

“There are lots of wonderful caregivers, but there are some rotten apples out there, too,” said Rhodes, adding that locals are not immune to the national media’s reports of elder abuse. For instance, in 2004, Comeliner Hunter of Vallejo pleaded no contest to pilfering a blank check from an elderly local woman who hired her as a caregiver, according to court records.

Restelli-Deits said while the new legislation lays the groundwork for more stringent caregiver laws in the future, it does not provide enough protection. While background checks will be offered under the law, they still are not required of would-be caregivers.

Shiff said seniors who hire caregivers through private agencies should ask whether the workers have had fingerprinting and background checks done through the Department of Justice. The term “background check” is subjective and could indicate as little as a reference check in some cases, she said.

“Massage therapists must get background checks before they can get a license to go into someone’s home — but yet, we will send (unscreened) caregivers into vulnerable seniors’ homes,” said Restelli-Deits. “Our concern is we don’t feel (SB 692) goes far enough. What we want to see is FBI checks and we want to see it nationwide.”