BILL ANALYSIS Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair 674 (Salas) Hearing Date: 08/12/2010 Amended: As Proposed to be Amended Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety 7-0 _________________________________________________________________ ____ BILL SUMMARY: AB 674 would allow a criminal defendant who is a veteran, if the defendant alleges that he or she committed the offense as a result of sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems stemming from military service in the United States military, require the court to make a determination as to whether a defendant was, or currently is, a member of the United States military, and would authorize the court to request through the use of existing resources an assessment of whether the defendant may be suffering from any of those disorders. The bill would provide that a county's obligation to provide mental health treatment services is contingent upon any resources for the implementation of mental health treatment services being appropriated by the state. The bill would eliminate an existing requirement that an order be made referring the defendant to a county mental health agency only if the agency agreed to accept responsibility for treatment of the defendant. _________________________________________________________________ ____ Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund Expands court procedure Likely minor increased workload General* Mandate: county mental health Likely minor costs; potentially reimbursable General *Trial Courts Trust Fund _________________________________________________________________ ____ STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. As Proposed to be Amended. AB 674 would modify existing pre-sentencing court procedures involving defendants convicted of a criminal offense when the defendant alleges that the offence was committed as a result of sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or mental health problems stemming from military service in the United States military. Under existing law, the additional court proceedings specified in this bill apply to individuals who have been in combat theater; this bill would include all veterans. The magnitude of future cases that will result in additional court proceedings under these provisions is unknown, but would result in additional workload and court time for each proceeding. This bill would also require the court to collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and the United States Veterans Administration (USVA) to maximize services to veterans. This vague requirement may increase the workload of the Administrative Office of the Courts, which is the agency most likely to be tasked with coordination responsibilities. Page 2 AB 674 (Salas) This bill expands the responsibility of county mental health agencies, and the new mandate is likely to be reimbursable. This bill specifically deletes an existing statute which specifies that an order referring a defendant to a county mental health agency can only be made if the agency agreed to accept responsibility for treatment of the defendant, eliminating the agency's discretion to treat both the new veterans added by this bill and those referred under existing law. Existing law also provides that if the referral is made to the county mental health authority, the county shall be obligated to provide mental health treatment services only to the extent that resources are available for that purpose. (Penal Code 1170.9(c).) It is unclear how the inability to decline to serve specified veterans would interact with this provision. Moreover, this bill would add "or contingent upon any resources for the implementation of mental health treatment services being appropriated by the state." This clause creates cost pressure to appropriate additional funds for this purpose, especially in conjunction with removing the agency's ability to decline service. The author's proposed amendments would: 1) Make permissive the previous requirement on the court to collaborate with the DVA and USVA; 2) provide that county mental health services will only be provided to the extent that there are existing resources; and 3) continue the provision in existing statute that an order be made referring the defendant to county mental health agency only if the agency agrees to accept responsibility for treatment of the defendant.