BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 621 Hearing Date: April 7, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hertzberg |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 27, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|AA |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Prior Legislation:SB 1054 (Steinberg) - Chapter 436, Statutes of
2014
Support: California Probation; Parole and Correctional
Association; Chief Probation Officers of California;
National Alliance on Mental Illness California;
Disability Rights California; Mental Health America of
California; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers Association; Sacramento County Sheriffs'
Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association;
Long Beach Police Officers Association; Disability
Rights California; Mental Health America of
California; Board of Supervisors; California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice; California Fraternal Order of
Police; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Opposition:None known
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageB
of?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to explicitly include a reference to
"diversion" programs that offer appropriate mental health
treatment and services among the programs for which Mentally Ill
Offender Crime Reduction funds may be used.
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 requires BSCC to "administer mentally ill offender
crime reduction grants on a competitive basis to counties that
expand or establish a continuum of timely and effective
responses to reduce crime and criminal justice costs related to
mentally ill offenders. The grants administered under this
article by the board shall be divided equally between adult and
juvenile mentally ill offender crime reduction grants in
accordance with the funds appropriated for each type of grant.
The grants shall support prevention, intervention, supervision,
and incarceration-based services and strategies to reduce
recidivism and to improve outcomes for mentally ill juvenile and
adult offenders." (Penal Code § 6045(a).)
Existing law provides that the "application submitted by a
county shall describe a four-year plan for the programs,
services, or strategies to be provided under the grant. The
board shall award grants that provide funding for three years.
Funding shall be used to supplement, rather than supplant,
funding for existing programs. Funds may be used to fund
specialized alternative custody programs that offer appropriate
mental health treatment and services. . . .(Penal Code § 6045.4)
This bill would expressly include the word "diversion" as a kind
of program authorized to receive these funds.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageC
of?
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageD
of?
contributed to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public
safety or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which
there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
In an effort to reinvest in treatment and prevention
at the local level, SB 621 promotes cost-effective
approaches to meet the long-term needs of adults and
juveniles with mental disorders who are offenders.
This bill 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.
2.Background
Last year's budget allocated $18 million -- $9 million for adult
offenders and $9 million for juvenile offenders -- to the
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Program ("MIOCR") as
authorized by the passage of SB 1054 (Steinberg). MIOCR
originated in 1998, when the Legislature passed SB 1485
(Rosenthal). Under SB 1485, the Board of Corrections (what is
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageE
of?
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, 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.<1>
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
-----------------------
<1> California Board of Corrections. (2005). Mentally Ill
Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: Overview of Statewide
Evaluation Findings.
.
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageF
of?
convicted than were those receiving treatment as usual
(TAU). Fewer participants served time in jail and,
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.<2>
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
Earlier this year, the BSCC released requests for proposals for
both adult and juvenile MIOCR programs. The due date for RFPs
was Friday, April 3, 2015.
1.What This Bill Would Do
As noted above, this bill would explicitly include the word
"diversion" in the MIOCR program statutory language concerning
eligible types of programs. This is consistent with current
law.
-- END -
---------------------------
<2> Id.
SB 621 (Hertzberg ) PageG
of?