BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair S
2007-2008 Regular Session B
8
5
1
SB 851 (Steinberg and Romero)
As Amended April 18, 2007
Hearing date: April 24, 2007
Penal and Welfare and Institutions Codes
AA:br
MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANTS AND INMATES
HISTORY
Source: California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies
Prior Legislation: None
Support: California Catholic Conference of Bishops; California
Medical Association; California Opioid Maintenance
Providers; California Psychiatric Association;
Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc.; Mental Health
Association in California; Mental Health Association in
Santa Barbara; Sylmar Health & Rehabilitation Center;
California Society for Clinical Social Work; California
Public Defenders Association; Peace Officers Research
Association of California (PORAC)
Opposition:Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Los
Angeles/Hollywood Chapter
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD the "Corrections Mental Health Act of 2007" BE ENACTED, AS
SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to enact numerous provisions
concerning how local law enforcement, the courts, and the state
correctional system should handle people who have serious mental
illnesses, including the following: 1) require peace officers
to contact the county mental health director to ascertain if
there is "available treatment capacity" if, based on certain
criteria, the officer suspects that a crime has been committed
by an individual with a serious mental illness which may include
a substance abuse condition and the person is willing to
participate in a treatment program; 2) require that, if there is
treatment capacity available, an arrested individual shall
receive services in accordance with the Mental Health Adult
System of Care, as specified; 3) provide that, if the individual
fails to remain in treatment, any pending criminal charges and
arrest that had been deferred pending treatment can proceed at
that time; 4) expressly and statutorily authorize courts to
implement "Mental Health Courts" for persons suffering from
mental illnesses, as specified, who are suspected of committing
a misdemeanor or felony, with locally-established case
eligibility criteria, as specified; 5) require CDCR to identify
inmates about to parole, and parolees, who are seriously
mentally ill, as specified; 6) require that all parolees with a
serious mental illness "receive comprehensive mental health and
supportive services comparable to the case management and
services available," as specified; 7) authorize CDCR to contract
with a Mental Health Court as a "referral court" for parolees
who are in violation of parole, as specified; 8) require CDCR to
train all persons responsible for the management and care of
inmates with serious mental illness to ensure that they are
trained in recovery-oriented rehabilitative services and that
those services are provided in prison; 9) require CDCR to
"ensure that all its correctional officers are trained in
dealing with inmates with mental illness"; 10) require CDCR, in
consultation DMH, to "establish service standards that ensure
that prisoners with a serious mental disorder are identified and
receive services;" 11) create an advisory committee, as
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageC
specified; 12) enact specified funding provisions, as specified;
and 13) enact a multitude of additional, related provisions.
Arrests of Persons with a "Serious Mental Illness"
Current law generally authorizes a peace officer to arrest a
person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority
granted to him or her, as specified, without a warrant, may
arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances
occur:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public
offense in the officer's presence.
(2) The person arrested has committed a felony,
although not in the officer's presence.
(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a felony,
whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.
(Penal Code 836.)
Current law generally requires an officer making an arrest
pursuant to a warrant to proceed with the arrested person as
commanded by the warrant. (Penal Code 848.)
Current law generally requires that a person arrested without a
warrant be taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay,
as specified. (Penal Code 849 (a).)
Current law authorizes any peace officer to release from
custody any person arrested without a warrant whenever:
(1) He or she is satisfied that there are
insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint
against the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested was arrested for intoxication
only, and no further proceedings are desirable.
(3) The person was arrested only for being under the
influence of a controlled substance or drug and such
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageD
person is delivered to a facility or hospital for
treatment and no further proceedings are desirable.<1>
(Penal Code 849 (b).)
This bill would add a new section to the Penal Code to require a
peace officer to "contact the county mental health director to
ascertain if there is available treatment capacity" if, based on
"Police Officer Standards and Training protocols," the peace
officer suspects that a crime has been committed by an
individual with a serious mental illness which may include a
substance abuse condition and the person is willing to
participate in a treatment program.
This bill requires that, if "there is treatment capacity
available, the individual shall receive services in accordance
with the Mental Health Adult System of Care set forth in Section
5806 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the individual
fails to remain in treatment, any pending criminal charges and
arrest that had been deferred pending treatment can proceed at
that time."
Mental Health Courts
Current law generally authorizes a trial court to "defer entry
of judgment" for eligible drug offenders, provided the offender
pleads guilty and completes an approved drug program, as
specified.<2> (Penal Code 1000.)
---------------------------
<1> Any record of arrest of a person released pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (3) enumerated in the text above is
required to include a record of release. Thereafter, such
arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a detention only.
(Penal Code 849 (c).)
<2> "Prior to 1996, the procedure was known as 'pretrial
diversion' with no guilty plea requirement. The essential
change in 1996 was the requirement of a guilty plea. However,
the process remains essentially a form of 'diversion,' i.e.,
persons charged with specified drug offenses are diverted from
ordinary criminal procedures." (4 Witkin Cal.Crim.Law
Pretrial 341 (citations omitted).)
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageE
Current law generally authorizes pretrial diversion in
misdemeanor cases, as specified. (Penal Code 1001.1 et
seq.; 1001.50 et seq.)
Current law generally provides for diversion for defendants with
cognitive developmental disabilities in misdemeanor cases.
(Penal Code 1001.20 et seq.)
Current law generally provides for diversion in bad check
cases, as specified. (Penal Code 1001.60 et seq.)
Current law generally provides for diversion for parents accused
of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as specified.
(Penal Code 1001.70 et seq.)
Current law provides for a variety of other special programs as
alternatives to traditional sentencing.<3>
This bill would enact the "Corrections Mental Health Act of
2007."
This bill would enact a new chapter to the Penal Code entitled,
"Diversion of Mentally Ill Offenders," as specified.
This bill would authorize superior courts "to develop and
implement Mental Health Courts," consistent with this bill.
This bill would require that a Mental Health Court have the
following objectives:
(1) Increase cooperation between the courts,
criminal justice, mental health, and substance
abuse systems.
(2) Creation of a dedicated calendar that will
lead to placement of as many mentally ill
offenders, including those with co-occurring
disorders, in community treatment, consistent with
--------------------
<3> See 4 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Pretrial 356.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageF
public safety.
(3) Improve access to necessary services and
support.
(4) Reduce recidivism.
This bill would require that a Mental Health Court "provide a
single point of contact where a defendant with a mental
disability or co-occurring disorder may receive court-ordered
treatment and support services in connection with a diversion
from prosecution, a sentencing alternative, or a term of
probation."
This bill would require a Mental Health Court to meet certain
criteria, as specified.
Eligibility for Mental Health Court
This bill would provide that "defendants suffering from mental
illness shall be eligible to participate in a Mental Health
Court pursuant to this chapter if a complaint or citation for an
offense is pending in superior court."
Defendant Assessment - Felony and Misdemeanor Cases
This bill would require each court, "with the input of local
stakeholders," to "establish a method for assessing every
defendant for mental illness and co-occurring disorders, at the
time a complaint or citation is filed for a misdemeanor or
felony offense, or at another specified time determined most
appropriate by local stakeholders to consider transferring the
defendant to a Mental Health Court."
This bill would require each court, with the input of
stakeholders, to "establish case eligibility criteria
specifying what factors relating to the amenability of the
defendant to treatment and to the facts of the case as well as
prior criminal history and mental health and substance abuse
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageG
treatment history will make the defendant eligible to
participate in a Mental Health Court."
This bill would provide that if "the defendant is found to be
suffering from mental illness, subsequent evaluation by the
local mental health director or his or her designee shall
determine whether a defendant is an appropriate candidate for
treatment under the county eligibility criteria established
pursuant to" the provisions enumerated above.
This bill would provide that if "the defendant is found to be
suffering from mental illness, the district attorney or other
designee shall assess his or her case to determine whether it
meets the county eligibility criteria established pursuant to"
the provisions enumerated above.
This bill would provide that if "a defendant is determined to
be suffering from mental illness, designated as treatment
appropriate, and his or her case meets the county eligibility
criteria, he or she may participate in a Mental Health Court."
Consent to Participation; Minimum of One Year on Probation
This bill would provide that if "a defendant is determined to
be eligible to participate in a Mental Health Court and
consents to participate, the defendant will be placed on
probation and will be required to participate in the program
for a minimum of one year."
This bill would require that the terms and conditions of
probation include "participation in a Mental Health Treatment
Program and, if he or she is on parole, the terms and
conditions of his or her parole."
Program Failure
This bill would provide that if a defendant fails to
successfully complete the Mental Heath Treatment Program, the
court shall sentence the defendant for the current misdemeanor
or felony offense.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageH
Parolees
This bill would require the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to identify parolees suffering from a
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageI
serious mental illness, as specified,<4> "including parolees who
have a pending case before a superior court, as well as
prisoners within 90 days of their parole date."
This bill would authorize CDCR to "contract with a superior
court and county to utilize Mental Health Courts as a referral
court for parolees with serious mental illness who either
violate the terms of parole or receive new terms, as an
---------------------------
<4> This provision would employ the definition in Welfare and
Institutions Code 5600.3 (b) (2) and (3), which states: ". .
. '(S)erious mental disorder' means a mental disorder which 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, as well as major
affective disorders or other severely disabling mental
disorders. This section shall not be construed to exclude
persons with a serious mental disorder and a diagnosis of
substance abuse, developmental disability, or other physical or
mental disorder. (3) Members of this target population shall
meet all of the following criteria: (A) The person has a mental
disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, other
than a substance use disorder or developmental disorder or
acquired traumatic brain injury (as specified) unless that
person also has a serious mental disorder as defined in
paragraph (2). (B) (i) As a result of the mental disorder, the
person has substantial functional impairments or symptoms, or a
psychiatric history demonstrating that without treatment there
is an imminent risk of decompensation to having substantial
impairments or symptoms. (ii) For the purposes of this part,
'functional impairment' means being substantially impaired as
the result of a mental disorder in independent living, social
relationships, vocational skills, or physical condition. (C) As
a result of a mental functional impairment and circumstances,
the person is likely to become so disabled as to require public
assistance, services, or entitlements."
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageJ
alternative to custody."
This bill would provide that if "the parolee successfully
completes the Mental Health Court program, parole or probation
will end."
This bill would provide that if the "parolee fails to
successfully complete the Mental Health Court program, he or she
will be sentenced by the judge according to existing law as to
any case pending in the superior court and (CDCR) will take any
action provided by law."
This bill would require that the "highest priority for referrals
of offenders shall be given to those offenders who are on active
parole and have a pending case in superior court."
This bill would require each Mental Health Court to report to
CDCR, "at a minimum, the savings in prison days, reduced
homelessness, involvement with local law enforcement, costs of
dual supervision by parole and probation, and other measures
identified by the department resulting from implementation of
the Mental Health Court in a manner consistent with the present
reporting system for the Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation
Act of 1999, as specified."
This bill would codify numerous statements pertaining to
parolees with serious mental illness and mental health care
services and requirements, as specified, including "(s)tate and
county government agencies each have responsibilities and fiscal
liabilities for seriously mentally disordered parolees."
This bill would require that all parolees with a serious mental
illness "receive comprehensive mental health and supportive
services comparable to the case management and services
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageK
available," as specified.<5>
This bill would require CDCR to "ensure the mental health needs
of all parolees are met in accordance with community standards
of mental health care. For those with a serious mental
disorder, as specified,<6> this bill would require that "all
services shall be in accordance with" the provisions of this
bill, as specified.
This bill makes numerous codified legislative findings regarding
mental health care for parolees, including what should be
included in that care and the adult system of care model, as
specified.
This bill additionally states it is the intent of the
Legislature to accomplish the following:
(1) Encourage CDCR's Division of Adult Parole
Operations "to implement a system of care as
described in this legislation for the delivery of
mental health services to seriously mentally
disordered parolees.
(2) To promote system of care accountability
for performance outcomes that enable parolees with
severe mental illness to reduce symptoms that impair
their ability to live independently, work, maintain
community supports, care for their children, stay in
good health, not abuse drugs or alcohol, and not
commit crimes.
(3) Provide funds for mental health services
and related medications, substance abuse services,
supportive housing or other housing assistance,
vocational rehabilitation, and other nonmedical
---------------------
<5> This provision cross-references Welfare and Institutions
Code 5806, which generally requires the state Department of
Mental Health to establish service standards to identify and
provide services for the target population which, under this
bill, would include individuals successfully completing parole
and mental health courts.
<6> See fn. 4.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageL
programs necessary to stabilize mentally ill
prisoners and parolees, reduce the risk of being
homeless, get them off the street and into treatment
and recovery, or to provide access to veterans'
services that will also provide for treatment and
recovery."
CDCR Training
This bill would require CDCR to "provide training for all
persons who will be responsible for the management and care of
persons with serious mental illness in the custody of the
department to ensure that they are trained in recovery oriented
rehabilitative services and that those services are provided in
prison."
This bill would require CDCR to "ensure that all its
correctional officers are trained in dealing with inmates with
mental illness."
CDCR Inmates
This bill would require CDCR, in consultation with the State
Department of Mental Health ("DMH"), to "establish service
standards that ensure that prisoners with a serious mental
disorder, (as specified,<7>) are identified, and services are
provided to assist them to be able, upon release, to live
independently, work, and reach their potential as productive
citizens."
This bill would require CDCR to "provide annual oversight of
services pursuant to this part for compliance with these
standards."
This bill would enumerate numerous standards required by its
provisions, generally including service planning, delivery,
design planning and related matters, as specified.
This bill would require that each "client" have "a clearly
---------------------------
<7> Id.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageM
designated mental health personal services coordinator who may
be part of a multidisciplinary treatment team who is responsible
for providing or assuring needed services," with some
responsibilities specifically enumerated by this bill.
This bill would require that the "individual personal services
plan shall ensure that members of the target population involved
in the system of care receive age, gender, and culturally
appropriate services, to the extent feasible, that are designed
to enable recipients upon release to achieve enumerated goals,"
as specified.
This bill would require DMH to continue to work with CDCR "and
other interested parties to refine and establish client and cost
outcome and interagency collaboration goals including the
expected level of attainment with participating counties. These
outcome measures should include specific objectives addressing
the following goals:
(a) Client benefit outcomes.
(b) Client and family member satisfaction.
(c) System of care access.
(d) Cost savings, cost avoidance, and
cost-effectiveness outcomes that measure short-term or
long-term cost savings and cost avoidance achieved in
public sector expenditures to the target population."
This bill would require DMH to provide training consultation,
and technical assistance to CDCR, and would require that
training to include the following:
"(a) Efforts to ensure that all of the
different programs are operating as well as they can.
(b) Information on which programs are having
particular success in particular areas so that they
can be replicated in other counties.
(c) Technical assistance to facilities in their
first two years of participation to ensure quality
and cost-effective service."
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageN
This bill would require that services be available to parolees
who have a serious mental disorder who meet the eligibility
criteria, as specified.<8>
This bill would require CDCR to apply for social security,
Medi-Cal benefits for those considered disabled, and veteran's
benefits for those eligible, as well as beginning vocational
training, independent living assistance, and development of
other skills necessary for success during parole and afterward
at least six months before discharge of a prisoner with a
serious mental illness.
This bill would require CDCR to coordinate with a program that
will continue the medications and support services provided to
the prisoner by the department during parole, after the period
of incarceration, in the last 90 days before release of a
prisoner with a serious mental illness. This provision also
would apply to CDCR prisoners under the jurisdiction of DMH, as
specified.
Funding
This bill would require that funding "shall be provided at
sufficient levels to ensure that each facility and parolee
center can provide each parolee served pursuant to this part
with the medically necessary mental health services,
medications, and supportive services set forth in the applicable
treatment plan."
This bill would provide that funding "shall only cover the
portions of those costs of services that cannot be paid for with
other funds including other mental health funds, public and
private insurance, and other local, state, and federal funds."
This bill would require CDCR Adult Parole Operations to provide
for services in accordance with the system of care for eligible
parolees, as specified.<9>
---------------------------
<8> Id.
<9> Id.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageO
This bill would require that "planning for services shall be
consistent with" specified "philosophies, principles, and
practices, . . . ."
Criteria for Funding
This bill would require that the "criteria for the funding for
each program shall include, but not be limited to, all of the
following:
(a) A description of a comprehensive strategic plan
for providing prevention, intervention, and evaluation
in a cost appropriate manner.
(b) A description of the population to be served,
ability to administer an effective service program, and
the degree to which local agencies and advocates will
support and collaborate with program efforts for
parolees.
(c) A description of efforts to maximize the use of
other state, federal, and local funds or services that
can support and enhance the effectiveness of these
programs."
CDCR Advisory Committee
This bill would require CDCR to "establish an advisory
committee, with specified representatives, for the purpose of
providing advice regarding the development of the identification
of specific performance measures for evaluating the
effectiveness of programs," as specified.
This bill would require the committee to "review evaluation
reports and make findings on evidence-based best practices and
recommendations. At not less than one meeting annually, the
advisory committee shall provide to the department written
comments on the performance of each of the programs."
Parolee Outpatient Clinics
This bill would require "parolee outpatient clinics (to) enter
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageP
into contracts with sponsors of supportive housing projects to
the greatest extent possible. Centers are encouraged to commit
a portion of their funds to rental assistance."
This bill would require CDCR to report to the Legislature and
evaluate the "effectiveness of the strategies for parolees in
reducing homelessness, recidivism involvement with local law
enforcement, and other measures identified by the department,"
as specified.
This bill would require that the "funding provided pursuant to
this article shall be sufficient to provide mental health
services, medically necessary medications to treat severe mental
illnesses, alcohol and drug services, transportation, supportive
housing and other housing assistance, vocational rehabilitation
and supported employment services, money management assistance
for accessing other health care and obtaining federal income and
housing support, accessing veterans' services, stipends, and
other incentives to attract and retain sufficient numbers of
qualified professionals as necessary to provide the necessary
levels of these services," as specified.
This bill would authorize CDCR to contract "with counties or
private providers for the provision of any of the services
described in this article."
DMH System of Care
Current law requires DMH to establish service standards that
ensure that members of the target population are identified, and
services provided to assist them to live independently, work,
and reach their potential as productive citizens, as specified.
(WIC 5806.)
Current law specifies requirements for plans for services
including outreach, as specified. (WIC 5805 (a)(2).)
This bill would add individuals successfully completing parole,
and mental health courts to these provisions.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageQ
Current law sets forth funding priorities for funding adult
system of care programs, as specified, (WIC 5814.)
This bill would add, as a third priority following 1)
maintaining funding for the existing programs that meet adult
system of care contract goals and 2) finding for counties with a
high incidence of persons who are severely mentally ill and
homeless or at risk of homelessness, "the establishment of
capacity for all counties to be able to serve everyone who meets
the criteria (for these services otherwise) who are subject to
arrest or hospitalization, discharged from a hospital or jail,
or successfully completing parole."
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION ("ROCA")
IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
significant level of overcrowding.<10> In addition,
California's jails likewise are significantly overcrowded.
Twenty California counties are operating under jail population
caps. According to the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties
are currently releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates
every month and many counties are so overcrowded they do not
accept misdemeanor bookings in any form, . . . ."<11> In
January of this year the Legislative Analyst's office summarized
the trajectory of California's inmate population over the last
two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
--------------------
<10> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21,
2007).
<11> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageR
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<12>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
--------------------
<12> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageS
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<13>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
---------------------------
<13> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageT
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<14>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
The missing element of corrections reform is mental
health care. This bill looks at the continuum of an
offender's experience from pre-booking to
post-parole and provides for mental health needs
when appropriate. The proposed remedies are based
on importing the Systems of Care approach, which has
been proven effective by objective evaluation and
solid performance measures. The solution in SB 851
is in routing mentally ill offenders into services
as early as possible, thereby treating their needs,
stabilizing their illness, increasing their ability
to fully incorporate into the living situation
around them, and reducing the likelihood that they
will reoffend.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This is an extensive and complex measure regarding how local law
enforcement, the courts, and the state correctional system
should handle people who have serious mental illnesses. This
bill would:
Require peace officers to contact the county mental
health director to ascertain if there is "available
treatment capacity" if, based on certain criteria, the
officer suspects that a crime has been committed by an
individual with a serious mental illness which may include
--------------------------
<14> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageU
a substance abuse condition and the person is willing to
participate in a treatment program;
Require that, if "there is treatment capacity available,
an arrested individual shall receive services in accordance
with the Mental Health Adult System of Care," as specified;
Provide that, if the individual fails to remain in
treatment, any pending criminal charges and arrest that had
been deferred pending treatment can proceed at that time;
Expressly and statutorily authorize courts to implement
"Mental Health Courts" for persons suffering from mental
illnesses, as specified, who are suspected of committing a
misdemeanor or felony, with locally-established case
eligibility criteria, as specified;
Require CDCR to identify inmates about to parole, and
parolees, who are seriously mentally ill, as specified;
Require that all parolees with a serious mental illness
"receive comprehensive mental health and supportive
services comparable to the case management and services
available," as specified;
Authorize CDCR to contract with a Mental Health Court
for as a "referral court" for parolees who are in
violation, as specified;
Require CDCR to train all persons responsible for the
management and care of inmates with serious mental illness
in the custody of the department to "ensure that they are
trained in recovery oriented rehabilitative services and
that those services are provided in prison";
Require CDCR to "ensure that all its correctional
officers are trained in dealing with inmates with mental
illness";
Require CDCR, in consultation DMH, to "establish service
standards that ensure that prisoners with a serious mental
disorder are identified and receive services";
Create an advisory committee, as specified;
Enact specified funding provisions, as specified; and
Enact a multitude of additional, related provisions.
3. Mental Health Court: Eligible Offenses
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageV
As explained above, this bill would appear to authorize some
form of diversion or deferred entry of judgment for mentally ill
offenders based upon locally-established assessments and
criteria. It would appear that both misdemeanors and felonies
could be eligible for these courts. Members may wish to discuss
whether there may be some category of offenses for which the
program contemplated by this bill may not be appropriate. For
example, there may be serious crimes against the person which
would be beyond the scope of this kind of court.
SHOULD ANY PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF CRIME BE STATUTORILY
INELIGIBLE FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH COURT CONTEMPLATED BY THIS
BILL?
OR, SHOULD THIS BE LEFT UP TO INDIVIDUAL COURTS?
4. Diversion or Deferred Entry of Judgment
As explained above, this bill would provide that if a defendant
fails to successfully complete the Mental Heath Treatment
Program, the court would be required to sentence the defendant
for the current misdemeanor or felony offense. (7:28-30.) This
bill also provides, however, that, if "there is treatment
capacity available, the individual shall receive services in
accordance with the Mental Health Adult System of Care . . . .
If the individual fails to remain in treatment, any pending
criminal charges and arrest that had been deferred pending
treatment can proceed at that time." (5:9-11; emphasis added.)
Technically, the bill is not entirely clear with respect to
whether it would create a deferred entry of judgment process,
where an offender pleads guilty and then engages in the approved
program, or a diversion program, where the criminal proceedings
are suspended as the person engages in treatment. Current law
contains a diversion program for defendants with cognitive
developmental disabilities. That statutory scheme provides for
the suspension of criminal proceedings as the person is
undergoing the court-ordered programming. This true diversion
approach, set forth in Penal Code Section 1001.20 et seq.,
contains procedural elements necessary in criminal law, such as
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageW
the defendant's consent and waiving of his or her right to a
speedy trial. The author may wish to consider replicating these
sections to achieve the purposes intended in this bill.
SHOULD THIS BILL BE REVISED TO PROVIDE FOR A TRUE DIVERSION
PROGRAM?
OR, SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY ITS PROVISIONS TO
ENACT A DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT SCHEME FOR SERIOUSLY MENTALLY
ILL OFFENDERS?
5. Arrest
As explained above, current law sets forth provisions concerning
arrest powers of peace officers. This bill would require a
peace officer to "contact the county mental health director to
ascertain if there is available treatment capacity" if, based on
"Police Officer Standards and Training protocols," the peace
officer suspects that a crime has been committed by an
individual with a serious mental illness which may include a
substance abuse condition and the person is willing to
participate in a treatment program.
It appears this bill contemplates individual officers contacting
the county mental health director in each arrest circumstance
involving a person believed to be seriously mentally ill. The
author may wish to work with law enforcement to ensure that this
provision, as a matter of practice in the field, is operable.
AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, WOULD THE ARREST PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL
BE OPERATIONAL IN THE FIELD?
6. Parolees in Mental Health Courts
As currently drafted, this bill would provide that if "the
parolee successfully completes the Mental Health Court program,
parole or probation will end." It is unclear how this provision
would affect the paroling authority of CDCR or the Board of
Parole Hearings. The author may wish to clarify how these two
systems would interrelate.
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageX
7. Inmates and Parolees - Systems of Care
As described above, this bill contains extensive requirements
concerning the assessment and care of seriously mentally ill
inmates and parolees. As noted above, there are several federal
court cases against CDCR concerning prison conditions and inmate
care. In conjunction with the Plata case, last year a receiver
was appointed to take control of CDCR's medical system. The
receiver has proposed the construction of several thousand
mental health beds. The author and the Committee may wish to
discuss how this measure would interrelate to remedial efforts
concerning the Plata lawsuit, and ongoing budget discussions
regarding mental health care in CDCR institutions.
HOW DOES THIS PROPOSAL RELATE TO CURRENT BUDGET DISCUSSIONS AND
PROPOSALS CONCERNING MENTALLY ILL INMATES AND PAROLEES?
(More)
8. Existing Mental Health Courts
California currently has mental health courts. As explained by
the Judicial Council:
Crises in community mental health care and the
long-term effects of de-institutionalization, the
drug epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s, the dramatic
increase in homelessness over the last two decades,
and widespread jail overcrowding have all led to an
increase in mental health courts. . . .
Like drug courts, mental health courts focus on
treatment to restore health and reduce criminal
activity. They focus on providing mentally ill
offenders with better access to treatment,
consistent supervision, and support to reconnect
with their families. The biggest challenges in
mental health courts are in the areas of training,
funding, and the management of complex cases.
Thirteen California trial court systems reported
having mental health courts in operation or planned
as of July 2002.
. . .
. . . Several types of mental health court models
have developed. . . . In 2001 Los Angeles
implemented a mental health court for misdemeanor
cases, including typical quality-of-life crimes such
as possessing a shopping cart. After arrest, a
mental health service provider conducts an
assessment to determine general needs and whether
the defendant is homeless. Unlike drug courts, once
the defendant is accepted into the program, he or
she participates in "status hearings" with the
provider, not with the court. The only time the
defendant shows up at court is when, after a year of
being clean and sober and not committing a new
(More)
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageZ
offense, his or her case is dismissed. The mental
health court has created linkages with a variety of
social services, such as job training and GED exam
preparation.
In January 1999, San Bernardino County's mental
health court began as a pilot program in the
superior court, with the Supervised Treatment After
Release (STAR) Program as its primary component. . .
.
On January 4, 2001, Riverside County began a mental
health court in the Hall of Justice in downtown
Riverside. . . .
In a mental health court, the two systems work
together to ensure that each defendant has the best
possible opportunity to comply with his or her terms
of probation and stay with the medical treatment
program. Mental health treatment terms (such as
medication, substance abuse placement, psychiatric
visits, and counseling) are made mandatory probation
terms. The defendant is made aware that failure to
comply means further incarceration. All defendants
are placed on formal probation, and the probation
officer is aware of all the mental health treatment
terms and receives a copy of the defendant's mental
health evaluation.
. . .
The mental health court in Santa Clara County was
established in 1999 to serve preconviction and
postconviction defendants. . . .
Both Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County also
have juvenile mental health courts in addition to
their adult mental health courts. . . .
Funding
SB 851 (Steinberg)
PageA
In 2002 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) offered $8 million
in grant funding for mental health courts. Other
funding for these court programs is provided through
the California Board of Corrections' Mentally Ill
Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) grant program,
grants for mentally ill homeless under California
Assembly Bill 2134, and through grants from the
Administrative Office of the Courts.
IF MENTAL HEALTH COURTS ALREADY EXIST IN CALIFORNIA, WHY IS THIS
BILL NECESSARY?
9. Double-Referral from Health Committee
This bill was heard and passed by the Senate Health Committee on
April 11, 2007.
***************