BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó







                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

                                                                     1
                                                                     0
                                                                     5
          SB 1054 (Steinberg)                                        4
          As Amended April 7, 2014 
          Hearing date:  April 22, 2014
          Penal Code 
          AL/AA:mc

                             MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME 

                                  REDUCTION GRANTS  


                                       HISTORY

          Source:  Author 

          Prior Legislation: AB 1811 (Laird) - Ch. 48, Stats. 2006  
                       SB 2062 (Perata) - 2000, vetoed by Governor 
                       SB 1485 (Rosenthal) - Ch. 501, Stats. 1998  
                       SB 2108 (Vasconcellos) - Ch. 502, Stats. 1998

          Support: NAMI California; California Council of Community Mental  
                   Health Agencies; California Mental Health Directors  
                   Association; Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Los  
                   Angeles County Sheriff's Department; American Association  
                   for Marriage and Family Therapy; Legal Services for  
                   Prisoners with Children; California State Association of  
                   Counties; Commonweal; Disability Rights California; Fight  
                   Crime: Invest in Kids California; National Association of  
                   Social Workers; California Catholic Conference of  
                   Bishops; California State Sheriffs' Association;  
                   California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California  
                   Public Defenders Association





                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageB

          Opposition:None known


                                         KEY ISSUE
           
          Should the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (MIOCRG)  
          Program be reinstated to provide counties funding to reduce  
          recidivism of mentally ill juvenile and adult offenders?


                                       PURPOSE

          The purpose of this bill is to provide grants to counties to  
          develop and implement a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy  
          to reduce the rate of recidivism and re-incarceration of  
          mentally ill offenders. 
                                                                    
           Existing law  establishes the Board of State and Community  
          Corrections (BSCC) as an independent entity of the California  
          Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).  (Penal  
          Code § 6024(a).)   
           
          Under existing law  , it is the mission of the BSCC to provide  
          statewide leadership, coordination, and technical assistance to  
          promote effective state and local efforts and partnerships in  
          California's adult and juvenile criminal justice system.  (Penal  
          Code § 6024(b).)   

           Existing law  establishes the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders  
          (COMIO) within the CDCR as a body including representatives from  
          mental health and the criminal justice system.  (Penal Code §  
          6044(a).)   
           
          Under existing law  , it is the mission of the COMIO to  
          investigate and promote cost-effective approaches to meeting the  
          long-term needs of adults and juveniles with mental disorders  
          who are offenders or are likely to become offenders.  (Penal  
          Code § 6044(e).)
           
          Existing law  defines mentally ill juvenile as "seriously  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageC

          emotionally disturbed children or adolescents," particularly  
          "minors under the age of 18 years who have a mental disorder as  
          identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and  
          Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, other than a primary  
          substance use disorder or developmental disorder, which results  
          in behavior inappropriate to the child's age according to  
          expected developmental norms."  (Welfare and Institutions Code §  
          5600.3(a)(1) and (2).)

           Existing law  defines mentally ill adult as "an adult or older  
          adult who has a serious mental disorder," particularly "a mental  
          disorder that is severe in degree and persistent in duration,  
          which may cause behavioral functioning which interferes  
          substantially with the primary activities of daily living, and  
          which may result in an inability to maintain stable adjustment  
          and independent functioning without treatment, support, and  
          rehabilitation for a long or indefinite period of time.  Serious  
          mental disorders include, but are not limited to, schizophrenia,  
          bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as  
          major affective disorders or other severely disabling mental  
          disorders."  This definition does not exclude persons with a  
          serious mental disorder and a diagnosis of substance abuse,  
          developmental disability, or other physical or mental disorder.   
          (Welfare and Institutions Code § 5600.3(b)(1) and (2).)




           Grant Program Purpose and Administration
          
          This bill  would require the BSCC to administer and award  
          competitive grants to counties to expand or establish a  
          continuum of graduated responses to reduce crime and costs  
          related to mentally ill offenders.  A continuum of graduated  
          responses for mentally ill offenders includes prevention,  
          intervention, and incarceration.  

          Definition of Mentally Ill Offenders
          
          This bill  would define mentally ill offenders as 1) "adults and  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageD

          older adults who have a serious mental disorder" and 2) "adults  
          or older adults who require or are at risk of requiring acute  
          psychiatric inpatient care, residential treatment, or outpatient  
          crisis intervention because of mental disorder with symptoms or  
          psychosis, suicidality, or violence."  (Welfare and Institutions  
          Code § 5600.3(b)(1) and (c).)

           Demonstration of County Eligibility
          
          This bill  would require counties to establish a strategy  
          committee to be eligible for mentally ill offender crime  
          reduction grants. 

           This bill  would require the strategy committee to do the  
          following for grant eligibility:


             1.   Consist of, at a minimum, the sheriff or director that  
               leads the administration of the county jail system,  
               representatives from other local law enforcement agencies,  
               the chief probation officer, the county mental health  
               director, a superior court judge, a client of a mental  
               health treatment facility, and representatives from service  
               providers for the mentally ill, as specified.    
             2.   Develop a comprehensive, cost-effective plan to provide  
               a continuum of graduated responses including mental health  
               or substance treatment and provisions for long-term  
               stability of mentally ill offenders after release. 
             3.   Identify specific outcome and performance measures and  
               plan for annual reporting to the BSCC for evaluation. 

           Grant Award Factors
          
          This bill  would require the BSCC to award the grants for four  
          years of supplemental funding.
           
          This bill  would allow grants to be awarded to specialized  
          alternative custody programs that offer "appropriate mental  
          health treatment and services." 





                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageE

           This bill  would require eligible counties to make available  
          resources, which may include in-kind contributions from  
          participating agencies, monetarily equivalent to at least 25  
          percent of the grant amount.  The BSCC would be required to  
          prioritize proposals that provide additional funding in excess  
          of 25 percent of the grant amount. 
           
          This bill  would require the BSCC to establish the minimum  
          standards, funding schedules, and procedures to award the  
          grants.  The BSCC will, at a minimum, take into consideration  
          the following: 

             1)   Percentage of the jail population with severe mental  
               illness. 
             2)   Applicant's demonstrated ability to administer the  
               program.
             3)   Applicant's demonstrated ability to effectively provide  
               treatment and stability for severely mentally ill  
               individuals. 
             4)   Applicant's demonstrated history of maximizing federal,  
               state, local, and private funding sources. 
             5)   Likelihood of continued program operation after grant  
               funding ends. 
           
          Evaluation of Grant Program
           
           This bill would require the BSCC to create an evaluation design  
          that will assess the effectiveness of the grant program in  
          reducing crime, the number of early releases due to jail  
          overcrowding, and local criminal justice costs. 

           This bill  would require the BSCC to submit annual reports based  
          on the evaluation design after June 30, 2014, with a final  
          report due to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2019. 
           
          This bill  would appropriate $50 million from the Recidivism  
          Reduction Fund to the BSCC for grants and administration of this  
          program.  This bill requires that one-half of the money be used  
          for juvenile offenders and one-half of the money be used for  
          adult offenders.  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageF


           This bill  has a sunset date of January 1, 2024. 

           This bill  includes findings with declarations regarding the  
          status of mentally ill juvenile offenders, as specified. 
          
                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's  
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation  
          relating to conditions of confinement.  On May 23, 2011, the  
          United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its  
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two  
          years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the  
          state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.  

          Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to  
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the  
          prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony  
          prosecutions.  Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which  
          stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the  
          Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the  
          scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased  
          the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate  
          the prison overcrowding crisis.  Under these principles, ROCA  
          was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary  
          to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards  
          reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would  
          increase the prison population.  ROCA necessitated many hard and  
          difficult decisions for the Committee.

          In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the  
          historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of  
          California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the  
          federal court order to reduce the state's prison population to  
          137.5 percent of design capacity.  The State submitted in part  
          that the, ". . .  population in the State's 33 prisons has been  
          reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public  
          safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates  
          compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageG

          inmates since 2006 . . . ."  Plaintiffs, who oppose the state's  
          motion, argue in part that, "California prisons, which currently  
          average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity  
          at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is  
          constitutionally deficient."  

          In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted  
          the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner  
          population cap by December 31st of this year.  

          The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and  
          related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain  
          unsettled.  However, in light of the real gains in reducing the  
          prison population that have been made, although even greater  
          reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review  
          each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration.  The following  
          questions will inform this consideration:

                 whether a measure erodes realignment;
                 whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
                 whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or  
               legislative drafting error; 
                 whether a measure proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy; and
                 whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy.

                                      COMMENTS

         1.Need for This Bill

           According to the author: 

               I have introduced SB 1054 - Mentally Ill Offender Crime  
               Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) Program with the goal of  
               reducing crime in our communities and breaking the  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageH

               pattern of our jails and prisons being our de facto  
               mental health facilities.

               SB 1054 re-establishes the successful community-based  
               treatment and services of the state's MIOCRG program.   
               The re-established program will give counties the  
               resources they need to divert mentally ill low-level  
               offenders to treatment rather than jail, with follow-up  
               services for those released from jail to keep them from  
               reoffending. 

               SB 1054 provides $50 million dollars allocated to  
               counties from SB 105's Recidivism Reduction Fund.  Half  
               the grant funding would be dedicated to adults with the  
               other half focused on juveniles.  A study this year by  
               the Board of State and Community Corrections shows 45  
               percent of youth in the California juvenile justice  
               system have open mental health cases.

               The expansion of effective mental health treatment  
               programs for offenders in the adult and juvenile systems  
               is key to reducing repeat offenses in our communities.   
               MIOCR grants will provide the opportunity for counties to  
               implement evidence based programs that lead to cost  
               effective solutions within the criminal justice system.

               Under the prior Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction  
               Grant program established in 1998, counties developed  
               local projects including mental health courts, enhanced  
               community-based mental health and substance abuse  
               treatment, and vocational and employment training.

         2.Prevalence of Mentally Ill Offenders 

           The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR)  
          Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (COMIO) regards the growing  
          number of inmates suffering from mental health issues as a  
          pressing concern.<1> 



          ---------------------------
          <1> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/comio/Legislation.html



                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageI

                     Nationally, a 2009 American Psychiatric Association  
                 study "found that 14.5% of male and 31.0% of female  
                 inmates recently admitted to jail have a serious mental  
                 illness" which is three to six times higher than rates  
                 found in the general population.  "A serious mental  
                 illness" included major depressive disorder, depressive  
                 disorder not otherwise specified, schizophrenia spectrum  
                 disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform  
                 disorder, brief psychotic disorder, delusional disorder,  
                 and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.<2>
                     In 2009, the Division of Correctional Health Care  
                 Services for the CDCR estimated that 23 percent of  
                 California's prison inmates have a serious mental  
                 illness.<3>  
                     According to the Berkeley Center for Criminal  
                 Justice, an estimated "40 to 70 percent of youth in the  
                 California juvenile justice system have some mental  
                 health disorder or illness," with 15 to 25 percent  
                 considered severely mentally ill.  Based on these  
                 numbers, youth in California's juvenile justice system  
                 are two to four times more likely to be in need of mental  
                 health care than California youth generally.<4>
                     The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 2006  
                 that 74 percent of mentally ill state prisoners and 76  
                 percent of mentally ill local jail inmates also met the  
                 criteria for substance dependence or abuse indicating a  
               -------------------------


          <2> Steadman, H., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., Case, B., &  
          Samuels, S. (2009).  Prevalence of serious mental illness among  
          jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 761-765.  
          .
          <3> Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families,  
          Children & the Courts.  (2011).  Task Force for Criminal Justice  
          Collaboration on Mental Health Issues: Final Report.  
          . 
          <4> Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice. (2010). Juvenile  
          Justice Policy Brief Series: Mental Health Issues in  
          California's Juvenile Justice System.  
          

                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageJ

                 larger issue with co-occurring disorders among mentally  
                 ill offenders.<5>   


         1.Increased Rates of Recidivism Among Mentally Ill Offenders

           A 2012 review conducted by the Utah Criminal Justice Center  
          found that released inmates with serious mental illness  
          experience poorer outcomes overall as they are "twice as likely  
          to have their probation or parole revoked, are at an elevated  
          risk for rearrest, incarceration, and homelessness, lack skills  
          to obtain and sustain employment, and have higher rates of  
          medical problems." <6> 

          In 2009, the Council of State Governors Justice Center released  
          a report entitled Improving Outcomes for People with Mental  
          Illnesses under Community Corrections Supervision, which stated  
          that the reasons for increased recidivism among mental ill  
          offenders may be multifaceted: 


             Once people with mental illnesses are finally released, it  
             is often extremely difficult for them to successfully  
             transition from incarceration to the community.  Their  
             mental illnesses may be linked to community corrections  
             supervision failure in a number of ways.  Skeem and Loudon  
             have characterized these links as being direct, indirect,  
             or spurious. 
             -------------------------
          <5> Treatment Advocacy Center & National Sheriffs' Association.  
          (2010). More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than  
          Hospitals: A Survey of States.  
          


          <6> University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center. (2012).  
          Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A Review of the  
          Literature.  
          .



                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageK


             First, mental illnesses may directly result in probation or  
             parole revocation. For example, an individual may not  
             access treatment, leading him or her to decompensate,  
             behave in a bizarre or dangerous manner in public, get  
             arrested for this behavior, and have his or her probation  
             revoked. 

             Second, mental illnesses may indirectly result in  
             revocation.  For example, an individual with clinical  
             depression may have impaired functioning that prevents him  
             or her from maintaining employment and paying court ordered  
             fines, which are standard conditions of release.  Notably,  
             many people with mental illnesses returning to the  
             community from jail or prison lack financial or social  
             supports.  Some were receiving Medicaid and other forms of  
             public assistance at the time of their arrest, and these  
             benefits are typically terminated rather than suspended  
             during incarceration, and rarely reinstated immediately  
             upon release.  In short, there is often no safety net to  
             compensate for functional impairments that may place  
             individuals with mental illnesses at risk for revocation. 

             Third, mental illnesses may not result in revocation.   
             Instead, the relationship between the two may be  
             spurious-that is, more apparent than real-because a third  
             variable associated with mental illness causes revocation.   
             For example, an individual with bipolar disorder may be at  
             risk of committing a new offense not because of his or her  
             mental illness, but because of criminogenic attitudes or  
             affiliation with antisocial peers.  Alternatively, an  
             individual with psychosis may be monitored exceptionally  
             closely and revoked readily by his or her probation  
             officer, given that traditional supervision strategies  
             often reflect misconceptions about (and stigma associated  
             with) mental illness.<7>

          CDCR data shows higher rates of recidivism in inmates identified  
                                                   
          ---------------------------
          <7>  
          https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023634.pdf.



                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageL

          with mental health issues when compared to those without.  Upon  
          release, inmates exhibiting mental health problems are assigned  
          one of two mental health services designations: Enhanced  
          Outpatient Program (EOP) or Correctional Clinical Case  
          Management System (CCCMS).  Inmates with severe mental illness  
          expected to experience difficulty transitioning out of  
          corrections are designated as EOP and receive treatment at a  
          level similar to day treatment services in the community, while  
          inmates receiving CCCMS services are housed within the general  
          population and participate on an outpatient basis.  In the 2012  
          CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, 76.7 percent of first-release  
          inmates with an EOP designation recidivated after three years,  
          compared to lower rates found in CCCMS designees (70.6 percent)  
          and those without a designation (62 percent).<8> 

          According to a 2005 CDCR report, mental health issues "comprised  
          the single most critical gap in juvenile justice services. ...   
          According to those surveyed, the number of at-risk youth and  
          youthful offenders with mental health problems continues to  
          increase as does the seriousness of their mental illnesses.  The  
          only thing not increasing is the resources to treat and confine  
          these troubled and troubling youth."  Even if juvenile offenders  
          receive assistance, absence of treatment after release may  
          contribute to a path of behavior that includes continued  
          delinquency and adult criminality.<9> 

         2.Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (1998-2008)

           In 1998, the Legislature passed SB 1485 (Rosenthal) establishing  
          the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (MIOCRG)  
          program.  Under SB 1485, the Board of Corrections (what is now  
          the BSCC) awarded grants to support the development,  
          implementation, and evaluation of projects that demonstrated  
          locally identified strategies for reducing recidivism among  
          mentally ill offenders. Before the program was defunded in 2008,  
          ---------------------------
          <8>  
          http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/A 
          RB_FY_0708_Recidivism_Report_10.23.12.pdf.
          <9> California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  
          (2005). Status Report on Juvenile Justice Reform. 



                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageM

          MIOCRG-funded projects delivered targeted, enhanced services  
          and/or interventions while fostering interagency collaboration  
          between mental health and criminal justice agencies:   

               The MIOCRG Program encompassed 30 projects in 26  
               counties ? While the 30 demonstration projects were  
               unique in that each was designed to deal with the  
               specific service gaps and needs of its jurisdiction,  
               all used their grants to maximize local resources,  
               incorporate evidence-based "best practices" and design  
               service delivery systems that would enhance local  
               capabilities.<10>

          An evaluation of the MIOCRG program in 2005 indicated generally  
          favorable outcomes: 


               The Board's analysis of the local research findings  
               confirms that the enhanced treatment and support  
               services offered through the MIOCRG program made a  
               positive difference.  The statewide research shows that  
               program participants were: 1) more comprehensively  
               diagnosed and evaluated regarding their mental  
               functioning and therapeutic needs, 2) more quickly and  
               reliably provided with services designed to ameliorate  
               the effects of mental illness, 3) provided with more  
               complete after-jail systems of care designed to ensure  
               adequate treatment and support, and 4) monitored more  
               closely to ensure that additional illegal behavior,  
               mental deterioration, and other areas of concern were  
               quickly addressed.  As a result, MIOCRG participants  
               were booked less often, convicted less often, and  
               convicted of less serious offenses when they were  
               convicted than were those receiving treatment as usual  
               (TAU).  Fewer participants served time in jail and,  
               -----------------------
          <10> California Board of Corrections. (2005). Mentally Ill  
          Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: Overview of Statewide  
          Evaluation Findings.  
          .



                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageN

               when they did serve time, they were in jail for fewer  
               days than were TAU participants. MIOCRG participants  
               improved in 'Quality of Life' outcomes including Global  
               Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores, reduced  
               substance use/abuse, having housing, and economic  
               self-sufficiency.<11>

               MIOCR Participants Group vs. Treatment as Usual (TAU) Group
                     All Bookings: 6% decrease
                     Felony Booking Offenses: 10% decrease
                     Any Conviction: 8% decrease
                     Felony Conviction Offense: 15% decrease
                     Jail Time: 5% reduction
                     Mean Jail Days: 1.5 days average reduction
                     Drug Problem: 19% decrease
                     Alcohol Problem: 23% decrease
                     GAF Score Improvement: 45% increase
                     Homelessness: 39% increase
                     Economic Self-Sufficiency: 32% increase
























                                                                     (More)






















                    --------------------
          <11> See Footnote 10. 








         1.What this Bill Would Do

           SB 1054 would reestablish the MIOCRG program with four primary  
          differences from its previous incarnation: 
               a.     SB 1054 explicit allocates one-half of the funds to  
                 adult offenders and one-half of the funds to juvenile  
                 offenders.  The earlier MIOCRG program made no special  
                 designations by age group, but through the Budget Act of  
                 2006, juvenile justice grants were later added. 
               b.     SB 1054 would not require the Board of State and  
                 Community Corrections to consult with state health  
                 agencies in awarding grants, establishing guidelines, or  
                 designing outcome indicators.  Under previous  
                 legislation, the grant entity was required to consult  
                 with the State Department of Mental Health and the  
                 Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
               c.     SB 1054 allows grants to be awarded to specialized  
                 alternative custody programs that offer appropriate  
                 mental health treatment and services.  Previous  
                 legislation prevented the use of grants towards programs  
                 providing an alternative to incarceration. 
               d.     SB 1054 draws funds from the newly created  
                 Recidivism Reduction Fund.  (SB 105, Steinberg - 2013,  
                 Ch. 310, Stats.)


         2.AB 109 Realignment Effects on Mentally Ill Offenders

           A 2012 report from the Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal  
          Justice Center examining the effects of realignment on mentally  
          ill offenders highlights several key considerations: 

                     Although it is still unclear to what degree,  
                 severely and moderately mentally ill offenders will be  
                 realigned to local correctional systems as jurisdiction  
                 over non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenses moves  
                 from the state to local level.  
                     Because county jails are not required to provide  
                 mental health services as state prisons are, many local  
                 correctional systems are ill-equipped to meet the needs  




                                                                     (More)







                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageP

                 of mentally ill offenders and lack sufficient treatment,  
                 services, and coordination among service providers. 
                     Mentally ill offenders realigned in counties with a  
                 progressive approach to mental health care may fare  
                 better under realignment. However, because mental health  
                 services vary by county, the treatment of mentally ill  
                 offenders is also likely to vary.  
                     Realignment may also create unintended consequences  
                 for mentally ill offenders in state prisons where they  
                 are more likely to be victimized and face "a more  
                 hardened prison population." <12> 



          SB 1054 may help address the critical needs of the offender  
          population as counties face these new challenges and begin to  
          develop long-term strategic planning on how to best identify and  
          serve mentally ill offenders at the local level.  According to  
          the author, "This [MIOCRG] program can? create better  
          alternatives for counties under realignment, and bring  
          desperately needed treatment for those struggling with mental  
          illness."

         1.Technical Suggestions: Mentally Ill Juvenile Offender Population

           As currently drafted, this bill may not fully describe on a  
          technical basis the mentally ill juvenile offender population  
          for which the bill is designed.  Additionally, the application  
          requirements, grant guidelines, and BSCC considerations in grant  
          administration and evaluation may not duly reflect what is  
          necessary to serve both adult and juvenile offender populations  
          equally and effectively.  The author's office has advised  
          Committee staff that the author intends to tighten the bill's  
          provisions with regard to these issues.   

          Additionally, the 2005 MIOCRG Final Report determined that many  
          counties conducted independent investigations of cost benefits  

          ---------------------------

          <12>  
          http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091 
          /doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf










                                                        SB 1054 (Steinberg)
                                                                      PageQ

          and/or cost effectiveness of their projects, but due to the  
          unique approach counties employed, these results were not  
          readily comparable.  The Committee and author may wish to  
          consider including a cost benefit analysis in the evaluation of  
          grants under Section 6045.b(a) and requiring participating  
          counties to collect necessary data. 



                                   ***************