BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 585
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 585 (Steinberg and Correa) - As Amended: May 13, 2013
Policy Committee: HealthVote:15-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill clarifies which funds can be used to provide mental
health services under the Assisted Outpatient Treatment
Demonstration Project Act of 2002 (Laura's Law), and allows
counties an additional means to authorize implementation of
Laura's Law. Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies the following funds can be used to provide mental
health services under Laura's Law:
a) Funds distributed to the counties from the Mental Health
Subaccount, the Mental Health Equity Subaccount, and the
Vehicle License Collection Account of the Local Revenue
Fund.
b) Funds from the Mental Health Account and the Behavioral
Health Subaccount within the Support Services Account of
the Local Revenue Fund 2011.
c) Funds from the Mental Health Services Fund (when
included in county plans).
d) Any other funds from which the Controller makes
distributions to the counties for those purposes.
2)Allows counties to authorize implementation of Laura's Law
through the county budget process.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible state fiscal effect. This bill makes an
appropriation by authorizing a previously unspecified use for
continuously appropriated Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)
funds. However, the bill does not result in any increased
funding or costs.
SB 585
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, there is presently a lack
of clarity as to whether certain funds can be used for mental
health services provided under Laura's Law. This bill
provides such clarity, while retaining the requirement that no
voluntary services lose ground as the result of a county
choosing to implement Laura's Law. In addition, this bill
provides counties with the option to implement Laura's Law
through their county budget process in order to provide
additional flexibility for counties.
2)Background . Enacted in 2002, Laura's Law was named for Laura
Wilcox, a 19-year-old college student in Nevada County who was
killed by a severely mentally ill man who was not adhering to
prescribed mental health treatment. Laura's Law permits
counties to provide court-ordered outpatient treatment
services for people with serious mental illness. To implement
the order, a court must find that a person's recent history of
hospitalizations or violent behavior, coupled with
noncompliance with voluntary treatment, indicates the person
is likely to become dangerous or gravely disabled without
treatment. The intent of Laura's Law is to provide prevent
deterioration among a small number of individuals who meet
narrow eligibility criteria, in order to prevent the
individuals from becoming gravely disabled or threatening.
A county board of supervisors must pass a resolution in order
to implement Laura's Law. To date, only Nevada County has
done so.
3)Related Legislation .
a) SB 664 (Yee), pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee, deletes the requirement under Laura's Law that
county boards of supervisors must pass a resolution
authorizing Laura's Law services and makes a finding that
no voluntary mental health programs may be reduced as a
result of Laura's Law implementation.
b) AB 1265 (Conway), which failed passage in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee and was granted reconsideration,
increases the maximum period of imposed assisted outpatient
treatment under Laura's Law from six months to one year.
SB 585
Page 3
c) AB 1367 (Mansoor), pending in the Assembly Health
Committee, clarifies that assisted outpatient treatment
provided under Laura's Law may be provided pursuant to the
MHSA and allows funding of local educational agencies for
training to identify students with mental health issues
that may result in a threat to themselves or others.
1)Previous Legislation . AB 1569 (Allen), Chapter 441, Statutes
of 2012, delays the sunset on Laura's Law from January 1,
2013, to January 1, 2017.
2)Opposition/Concern . The National Alliance on Mental Illness,
California (NAMI California) and the California Mental Health
Directors Association (CMHDA) support the clarification of
fund sources available to implement Laura's Law, but request
that the bill be amended to delete the provision allowing
implementation through the county budget process. Both groups
are concerned that authorization through the budget process
will reduce transparency and community involvement in the
decision to implement Laura's Law.
The California Psychological Association opposes the expansion
of Laura's Law as well as the county budget provision. The
Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which opposes drug-based
treatments for mental health disorders broadly, opposes this
bill, citing their belief it will result in human rights
abuses.
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081