BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2520|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2520
Author: Maienschein (R), et al.
Amended: 8/4/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/24/14
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Mitchell,
Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Parole: primary mental clinicians
SOURCE : AFSCME Local 2620
DIGEST : This bill provides that where an inmate pending
release on parole is evaluated by experts to determine if he/she
should be treated on parole as a mentally disordered offender,
the evaluators shall consult with the inmate's primary health
clinician, if the inmate so requests; and provides that where a
psychologist performs an evaluation of an inmate for purposes of
parole consideration, the psychologist shall consult with the
inmate's primary health clinician, if the inmate so requests.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
2
Existing law:
1. States a legislative finding and declaration that the
Department of Corrections (CDCR) should evaluate each
prisoner for severe mental disorders during the first year of
the prisoner's sentence, and that severely mentally
disordered prisoners should be provided with an appropriate
level of mental health treatment while in prison and when
returned to the community.
2. Requires, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who meets the
following criteria to be treated by the Department of State
Hospitals (DSH) and DSH to provide the necessary treatment:
A. The prisoner has a severe mental disorder, as defined,
that is not in remission, as defined, or cannot be kept in
remission without treatment;
B. The severe mental disorder was one of the causes of or
was an aggravating factor in the commission of a crime, as
specified, for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison;
C. The prisoner has been in treatment for the severe
mental disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior
to the prisoner's parole or release; and
D. Prior to release on parole, the person in charge of
treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or
psychologist from the DSH or a chief psychiatrist of CDCR,
as applicable, have evaluated the prisoner at a CDCR
facility or state hospital, as applicable, and a chief
psychiatrist of CDCR has certified to the Board of Parole
Hearings (BPH) that the prisoner meets the above criteria
and that by reason of his/her severe mental disorder the
prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm
to others.
1. Requires BPH to order a further examination by two
independent professionals, as specified, if the professionals
doing the evaluation described above do not concur that (a)
the prisoner has a severe mental disorder, (b) that the
disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission
without treatment, or (c) that the severe mental disorder was
a cause of, or aggravated, the prisoner's criminal behavior,
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
3
and a chief psychiatrist has certified the prisoner to the
BPH. It further requires the certification by a chief
psychiatrist to stand if at least one of the independent
professionals who evaluate the prisoner concurs with the
chief psychiatrist's certification.
2. Allows BPH, upon a showing of good cause, to order an inmate
to remain in custody for up to 45 days past the scheduled
release date for a full mentally disorder offender (MDO)
evaluation.
3. Allows the prisoner to challenge the MDO determination both
administratively and judicially.
4. Requires MDO treatment to be inpatient treatment unless
there is reasonable cause to believe that the parolee can be
safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis.
Allows a parolee to request a hearing to determine whether
outpatient treatment is appropriate if the hospital does not
place the parolee on outpatient treatment within 60 days of
receiving custody of the parolee.
5. Provides that prior to a life inmate's initial parole
consideration hearing, a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA)
will be performed by a licensed psychologist employed by BPH,
except as specified.
6. Provides that a CRA will be completed every five years and
will consist of both static and dynamic factors which may
assist a hearing panel or BPH in determining whether the
inmate is suitable for parole. Provides that the assessment
may include, but is not limited to, an evaluation of the
commitment offense, institutional programming, the inmate's
past and present mental state, and risk factors from the
prisoner's history and that the assessment will provide the
clinician's opinion, based on the available data, of the
inmate's potential for future violence. Allows BPH
psychologists to incorporate actuarially-derived and
structured professional judgment approaches to evaluate an
inmate's potential for future violence.
7. States that in the five-year period after a CRA has been
completed, life inmates who are due for a regularly scheduled
parole consideration hearing will have a Subsequent Risk
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
4
Assessment completed by a licensed psychologist employed by
BPH for use at the hearing; however, this will not apply to
documentation hearings, cases coming before BPH en banc,
progress hearings, three-year reviews of a five-year denial,
rescission hearings, postponed hearings, waived hearings or
hearings scheduled pursuant to court order, unless the BPH's
chief psychologist or designee, in his/her discretion,
determines a new assessment is appropriate under the
individual circumstances of the inmate's case. It provides
that the Subsequent Risk Assessment will address changes in
the circumstances of the inmate's case, such as new
programming, new disciplinary issues, changes in mental
status, or changes in parole plans since the completion of
the CRA but will not include an opinion regarding the
inmate's potential for future violence because it
supplements, but does not replace, the CRA.
8. Requires, regardless of the length of time served, a life
prisoner to be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in
the judgment of the BPH panel, the prisoner will pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from
prison, with the following circumstances tending to indicate
unsuitability:
A. Commitment offense (The prisoner committed the offense
in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner.);
B. Previous record of violence;
C. Unstable social history;
D. Sadistic sexual offenses;
E. Psychological factors (the prisoner has a lengthy
history of severe mental problems related to the
offense.); and
F. Institutional behavior.
This bill:
1. Requires an independent professional appointed by BPH for
purposes of determining parole suitability of a MDO, at the
request of the prisoner, to consult with a prisoner's primary
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
5
mental health clinician, if any, before making a
recommendation concerning that prisoner to BPH; defines
"primary mental health clinician," for purposes of this
provision, to mean a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or
clinical social worker who regularly treats the prisoner,
including, but not limited to, an employee of DSH or a
privately-hired person.
2. Requires BPH, at any hearing where BPH considers a
Psychological Risk Assessment, as specified, as part of its
determination of whether to set, postpone, or rescind a
parole release date of a prisoner under a life sentence, at
the request of the prisoner under a life sentence, also
consult with the prisoner's primary mental health clinician
if that person exists; defines "primary mental health
clinician," for purposes of this provision, to mean a
licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social
worker who regularly treats the prisoner, including, but not
limited to, a state employee or a privately-hired person.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Potentially significant ongoing costs in the range of
$200,000 to $400,000 (General Fund) for MDO consultations.
Based on 1,350 MDO hearings per year, assuming 50% of inmates
request a consultation that requires on average one to two
hours (including time for identification and notification of
the clinician, scheduling, potential travel, and the
consultation itself).
Potential ongoing costs of about $37,500 to $75,000 (General
Fund) to provide consults requested by inmates serving life
sentences. Based on 240 parole consideration hearings for
these inmates, assuming 50% of inmates request a consultation
that requires on average one to two hours for the process.
One-time costs of about $100,000 (General Fund) for the CDCR
to promulgate regulations for the MDO elective consultation
process.
Ongoing minor costs (General Fund) to DSH to the extent
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
6
mandated activities can be carried out over the telephone.
Unknown future savings/costs to the extent the additional
consultations result in fewer or additional MDO commitments,
and fewer or additional releases to parole for lifer inmates.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/13/14)
AFSCME Local 2620 (source)
Justice Fellowship
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/13/14)
California Public Defenders Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The AFSCME Local 2620 states in
support:
Currently, independent evaluators charged with evaluating
a prisoner prior to a lifer parole hearing or release on
parole from a determinate term review the medical chart
and interview the inmate. Independent evaluators do not
consult with the primary clinician who has been treating
the inmate, thus providing an incomplete assessment of the
inmate's progress or condition.
The purpose of this bill is not to influence decisions,
but to create a more accurate evaluation of the inmate by
providing the outside evaluator with the assessment of the
primary clinician, the profession who knows the inmate
better than the outside evaluator. This will produce a
better representation of whether the inmate is suitable
for parole or release without mandatory treatment.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Public Defenders
Association states in opposition:
AB 2520 requires that appointed independent mental health
expert appointed to evaluate an inmate as a possible
mentally disordered offender consult with the inmate's
treating therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist. The
legislation appears to ensure that the treating therapist's
viewpoint is unfairly weighted so as to defeat the balanced
scheme in existing law that protects the public and the
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
7
rights of the inmate. The whole process begins when the
treating therapist opines that an inmate is an MDO.
Requiring independent evaluators consult with the treating
therapist undermines the independence of the evaluators.
Specifically, under the terms of the governing law, the
treating psychologist - or even the chief psychiatrist if
he/she is the treating physician - has already evaluated
the inmate and rendered an opinion that the inmate is an
MDO. At that point, the inmate is evaluated by the
treating clinician at CDCR and a DSH psychologist or
psychiatrist. If one of the evaluators finds that the
inmate is an MDO, but the other does not, the vote of the
chief psychiatrist at CDCR - who may be the treating
physician - breaks the tie of the two initial evaluators.
At the next step, two independent evaluators are appointed.
By mandating that the independent evaluators consult the
treating therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist, but not
the other mental health evaluators who have opined that the
inmate is not an MDO, the bill would put pressure on the
independent evaluators to adopt the treating professional's
viewpoint. The treating therapist must have opined that
the inmate is an MDO, or the chief psychiatrist would not
have certified that finding.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/27/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez,
Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Vacancy
JG:dk 8/16/14 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
AB 2520
Page
8
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED