BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2520
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2520 (Maienschein)
As Amended August 4, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(May 27, 2014) |SENATE: |34-0 |(August 26, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Requires an independent professional or the Board of
Parole Hearings (BPH), as applicable, to, at the request of a
prisoner who is found to be a mentally disordered offender (MDO)
or is serving an indeterminate sentence with the possibility of
parole, as specified, consult with the prisoner's primary mental
health clinician before making a recommendation concerning that
prisoner or for purposes of determining parole suitability, as
applicable.
The Senate amendments make technical, non-substantive changes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , 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
mental clinician, if any, before making a recommendation
concerning that prisoner to BPH. Defines "primary mental
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 the State Department of State Hospitals 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 clinician if that person
exists. Defines "primary mental clinician," for purposes of
this provision, to mean a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist,
or clinical social worker who regularly treats the prisoner,
AB 2520
Page 2
including, but not limited to, a state employee or a
privately-hired person.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)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).
2)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.
3)One-time costs of about $100,000 (General Fund) for the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
to promulgate regulations for the MDO elective consultation
process.
4)Ongoing minor costs (General Fund) to DSH to the extent
mandated activities can be carried out over the telephone.
5)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.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Existing law allows a
prisoner to request a hearing from the Board of Parole Hearings
to make the case of why they should be given parole. The law
requires that a prisoner who is being considered for parole
within the CDCR, be evaluated by a certified clinician prior to
a parole hearing.
"If it is determined that the prisoner should receive a parole
hearing, existing law requires that the clinician in charge of
treating the prisoner and an independent evaluator from within?
CDCR, evaluate the prisoner. The law also requires the Board of
Parole Hearings to appoint two independent professionals to
conduct an additional review in certain circumstances.
AB 2520
Page 3
"However, these independent evaluators are not required to
consult with a prisoner's primary clinician before making a
recommendation to the board. The findings of these evaluators
may be incomplete or lack context since they may not know the
unique circumstances facing the prisoner.
"My bill would require the independent evaluator from CDCR to
consult with the prisoner's primary clinician before making a
recommendation to the Board of Parole Hearings. This would help
ensure public safety and the well-being of the prisoner by
improving communication between the prisoner's health team and
independent evaluators."
Analysis Prepared by : Shaun Naidu / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN:
0005009