BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 60|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 60
Author: Evans (D), et al
Amended: 5/31/11
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/3/11
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 5/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Emmerson, Lieu, Pavley,
Price, Runner, Steinberg
SUBJECT : Mental health: state hospitals
SOURCE : The American Federation of State, County and
Municipal
Employees
DIGEST : This bill requires upon being admitted to a
state hospital, the Department of Mental Health pursuant to
the Penal Code, be evaluated for security and violence
risks, as specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law provides that prior to admission
of a patient committed as "Not Guilty by Reason of
Insanity" or "Criminal Defendant Incompetent to Stand
Trial" to Napa or Metropolitan State Hospital, Department
of Mental Health (DMH) shall evaluate each patient for
risk. Any high-risk patient shall be treated in DMH's most
CONTINUED
SB 60
Page
2
secure facilities. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section
7228.)
Existing law provides that high-risk patients shall be
treated at the hospital at Atascadero or Patton, a
correctional facility, or other secure facility, but shall
not be treated at Napa or Metropolitan. Metropolitan and
Napa shall only treat low-to-moderate risk patients.
(Welfare & Institutions Code Section 7230.)
Existing law provides that where the director of DMH
opines, and the CDCR director agrees, that a person who was
committed to DMH pursuant to a Penal Code provision, or who
is under observation pursuant to the (now repealed)
mentally disordered sex offenders law, needs treatment
under custodial security, the person may be transferred to
CDCR. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 7301.)
Existing law provides that DMH patients transferred to a
CDCR facility are not subject to prosecution under statutes
covering assaults by prison inmates (Penal Code Sections
4500-4502) and escapes by prison inmates (Penal Code
Sections 4530 and 4531 ). (Welfare & Institutions Code
Section 7301.)
This bill provides that upon the time a patient is admitted
to any state mental hospital pursuant to any provision of
the Penal Code, DMH shall evaluate each patient committed
pursuant to any section of the Penal Code to determine the
security and violence risk that patient presents to other
patients and staff and the risks to the patient's safety
and security that he/she faces upon admission to the state
hospital.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
CONTINUED
SB 60
Page
3
DMH conduct new likely in the
hundreds of General
Or augment existingthousands of dollars
assessments
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/31/11) (unable to reverify)
California Association of Psychiatric Technicians
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
Peace Officers Research Association in California
The Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/31/11) (unable to reverify)
Disability Rights California (unless amended)
California Nurses Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
this bill will significantly enhance worker, patient, and
public safety at the Department of Mental
Health-administered state hospitals. There has been a
profound change in the composition of the patient
population at state hospitals since Napa State Hospital was
founded 137 years ago. However, statute and operations at
state hospitals have yet to fully evolve to reflect this
new reality. Facilities such as Napa State Hospital were
initially situated in park-like settings to care for
mentally ill patients who were wards of the state, today
more than 90 percent of all individuals being treated in
the state hospital system have been forensically-committed.
In fact, fewer than 500 individuals in the entire system
have been placed in a state hospital by non-forensic means.
This has resulted in the dramatic shift in the population
make-up at state hospitals. The tragic murder of
psychiatric technician Donna Gross at Napa State Hospital
by a patient last fall and the on-going daily occurrence of
dozens of assaults upon workers and individuals receiving
treatment at state hospitals reflect this new reality at
our state hospitals that we cannot allow to continue.
This bill addresses this new reality by requiring an
individual who is proposed to be placed at a state hospital
be evaluated prior to commitment as to their criminal
history, psychological factors, propensity for violence,
CONTINUED
SB 60
Page
4
and other factors and as a result of the assessment be
placed in an appropriately-secure facility for treatment.
The bill also allows for those individuals placed at a
state hospital who commit a violent act against another at
that facility to be remanded to the CDCR for custodial
treatment. An omnipresent threat of violence should not be
a required condition for those who work or those being
treated at our state hospitals. We need the common-sense
approach that includes the assessment and appropriate
placement embodied in this bill to end this being the
situation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Disability Rights California
opposes this bill for the following reasons: (1) this bill
would prohibit a person who was transferred because he or
she, while housed in the stat hospital, committed an act
that resulted in the death, rape, or life threatening
injury of another patient or a staff member of the state
hospital, from being returned to the state hospital until a
court has determined in a hearing that the person does not
represent a substantial risk of harm to himself, herself,
or others; (2) this bill would also require a risk
evaluation prior to the commitment to any state hospital,
of a patient who is being committed pursuant to any
provision of the Penal Code. The bill would require a
patient determined to be a high-security or violence risk
to be placed in a treatment unit within a state hospital,
correctional facility, state prison psychiatric facility,
or other secure facility with sufficient enhanced security
and treatment options to ensure the security of the
patient, the other patients, and the staff, and to
appropriately provide treatment to address the underlying
causes of the risk, consistent with generally accepted
professional standards; (3) the use of the term "security"
under section 7228 can have multiple meanings. In order to
prevent situations where an individual is inappropriately
placed in a high-security unit (i.e., an individual whose
behavior makes him a target of physical aggression by other
individuals is placed in a high-security unit for his own
security) the term "security" should be removed. Under
7228(c), the proposed language does not allow for timely
review of individuals placed in a high-security unit for
transfer back to a regular unit; and (4) the due process
procedures outlined in the Department of Mental Health's
CONTINUED
SB 60
Page
5
Special Order 608 should be incorporated into section 7301.
For proposed section 7301(b), a determination as to
whether an individual is ready for transfer from DCR back
to DMH should remain with treating professionals unless the
individual would like a court to review the appropriateness
of the placement with DCR. The standard for returning to a
state hospital should be whether an individual can safely
be treated at a state hospital rather than the proposed
language of substantial risk of harm to self or others.
RJG:do 5/31/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED