BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
0
5
SB 1054 (Steinberg) 4
As Amended April 7, 2014
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
Penal Code
AL/AA:mc
MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME
REDUCTION GRANTS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1811 (Laird) - Ch. 48, Stats. 2006
SB 2062 (Perata) - 2000, vetoed by Governor
SB 1485 (Rosenthal) - Ch. 501, Stats. 1998
SB 2108 (Vasconcellos) - Ch. 502, Stats. 1998
Support: NAMI California; California Council of Community Mental
Health Agencies; California Mental Health Directors
Association; Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department; American Association
for Marriage and Family Therapy; Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children; California State Association of
Counties; Commonweal; Disability Rights California; Fight
Crime: Invest in Kids California; National Association of
Social Workers; California Catholic Conference of
Bishops; California State Sheriffs' Association;
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California
Public Defenders Association
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageB
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
Should the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (MIOCRG)
Program be reinstated to provide counties funding to reduce
recidivism of mentally ill juvenile and adult offenders?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide grants to counties to
develop and implement a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy
to reduce the rate of recidivism and re-incarceration of
mentally ill offenders.
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 establishes the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders
(COMIO) within the CDCR as a body including representatives from
mental health and the criminal justice system. (Penal Code �
6044(a).)
Under existing law , it is the mission of the COMIO to
investigate and promote cost-effective approaches to meeting the
long-term needs of adults and juveniles with mental disorders
who are offenders or are likely to become offenders. (Penal
Code � 6044(e).)
Existing law defines mentally ill juvenile as "seriously
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageC
emotionally disturbed children or adolescents," particularly
"minors under the age of 18 years who have a mental disorder as
identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, other than a primary
substance use disorder or developmental disorder, which results
in behavior inappropriate to the child's age according to
expected developmental norms." (Welfare and Institutions Code �
5600.3(a)(1) and (2).)
Existing law defines mentally ill adult as "an adult or older
adult who has a serious mental disorder," particularly "a mental
disorder that 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,
bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as
major affective disorders or other severely disabling mental
disorders." This definition does not exclude persons with a
serious mental disorder and a diagnosis of substance abuse,
developmental disability, or other physical or mental disorder.
(Welfare and Institutions Code � 5600.3(b)(1) and (2).)
Grant Program Purpose and Administration
This bill would require the BSCC to administer and award
competitive grants to counties to expand or establish a
continuum of graduated responses to reduce crime and costs
related to mentally ill offenders. A continuum of graduated
responses for mentally ill offenders includes prevention,
intervention, and incarceration.
Definition of Mentally Ill Offenders
This bill would define mentally ill offenders as 1) "adults and
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageD
older adults who have a serious mental disorder" and 2) "adults
or older adults who require or are at risk of requiring acute
psychiatric inpatient care, residential treatment, or outpatient
crisis intervention because of mental disorder with symptoms or
psychosis, suicidality, or violence." (Welfare and Institutions
Code � 5600.3(b)(1) and (c).)
Demonstration of County Eligibility
This bill would require counties to establish a strategy
committee to be eligible for mentally ill offender crime
reduction grants.
This bill would require the strategy committee to do the
following for grant eligibility:
1. Consist of, at a minimum, the sheriff or director that
leads the administration of the county jail system,
representatives from other local law enforcement agencies,
the chief probation officer, the county mental health
director, a superior court judge, a client of a mental
health treatment facility, and representatives from service
providers for the mentally ill, as specified.
2. Develop a comprehensive, cost-effective plan to provide
a continuum of graduated responses including mental health
or substance treatment and provisions for long-term
stability of mentally ill offenders after release.
3. Identify specific outcome and performance measures and
plan for annual reporting to the BSCC for evaluation.
Grant Award Factors
This bill would require the BSCC to award the grants for four
years of supplemental funding.
This bill would allow grants to be awarded to specialized
alternative custody programs that offer "appropriate mental
health treatment and services."
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageE
This bill would require eligible counties to make available
resources, which may include in-kind contributions from
participating agencies, monetarily equivalent to at least 25
percent of the grant amount. The BSCC would be required to
prioritize proposals that provide additional funding in excess
of 25 percent of the grant amount.
This bill would require the BSCC to establish the minimum
standards, funding schedules, and procedures to award the
grants. The BSCC will, at a minimum, take into consideration
the following:
1) Percentage of the jail population with severe mental
illness.
2) Applicant's demonstrated ability to administer the
program.
3) Applicant's demonstrated ability to effectively provide
treatment and stability for severely mentally ill
individuals.
4) Applicant's demonstrated history of maximizing federal,
state, local, and private funding sources.
5) Likelihood of continued program operation after grant
funding ends.
Evaluation of Grant Program
This bill would require the BSCC to create an evaluation design
that will assess the effectiveness of the grant program in
reducing crime, the number of early releases due to jail
overcrowding, and local criminal justice costs.
This bill would require the BSCC to submit annual reports based
on the evaluation design after June 30, 2014, with a final
report due to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2019.
This bill would appropriate $50 million from the Recidivism
Reduction Fund to the BSCC for grants and administration of this
program. This bill requires that one-half of the money be used
for juvenile offenders and one-half of the money be used for
adult offenders.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageF
This bill has a sunset date of January 1, 2024.
This bill includes findings with declarations regarding the
status of mentally ill juvenile offenders, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order to reduce the state's prison population to
137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part
that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons has been
reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public
safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates
compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageG
inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs, who oppose the state's
motion, argue in part that, "California prisons, which currently
average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity
at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient."
In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted
the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner
population cap by December 31st of this year.
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unsettled. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
I have introduced SB 1054 - Mentally Ill Offender Crime
Reduction Grant (MIOCRG) Program with the goal of
reducing crime in our communities and breaking the
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageH
pattern of our jails and prisons being our de facto
mental health facilities.
SB 1054 re-establishes the successful community-based
treatment and services of the state's MIOCRG program.
The re-established program 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.
SB 1054 provides $50 million dollars allocated to
counties from SB 105's Recidivism Reduction Fund. Half
the grant funding would be dedicated to adults with the
other half focused on juveniles. A study this year by
the Board of State and Community Corrections shows 45
percent of youth in the California juvenile justice
system have open mental health cases.
The expansion of effective mental health treatment
programs for offenders in the adult and juvenile systems
is key to reducing repeat offenses in our communities.
MIOCR grants will provide the opportunity for counties to
implement evidence based programs that lead to cost
effective solutions within the criminal justice system.
Under the prior Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction
Grant program established in 1998, counties developed
local projects including mental health courts, enhanced
community-based mental health and substance abuse
treatment, and vocational and employment training.
2.Prevalence of Mentally Ill Offenders
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR)
Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (COMIO) regards the growing
number of inmates suffering from mental health issues as a
pressing concern.<1>
---------------------------
<1> http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/comio/Legislation.html
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageI
Nationally, a 2009 American Psychiatric Association
study "found that 14.5% of male and 31.0% of female
inmates recently admitted to jail have a serious mental
illness" which is three to six times higher than rates
found in the general population. "A serious mental
illness" included major depressive disorder, depressive
disorder not otherwise specified, schizophrenia spectrum
disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform
disorder, brief psychotic disorder, delusional disorder,
and psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.<2>
In 2009, the Division of Correctional Health Care
Services for the CDCR estimated that 23 percent of
California's prison inmates have a serious mental
illness.<3>
According to the Berkeley Center for Criminal
Justice, an estimated "40 to 70 percent of youth in the
California juvenile justice system have some mental
health disorder or illness," with 15 to 25 percent
considered severely mentally ill. Based on these
numbers, youth in California's juvenile justice system
are two to four times more likely to be in need of mental
health care than California youth generally.<4>
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 2006
that 74 percent of mentally ill state prisoners and 76
percent of mentally ill local jail inmates also met the
criteria for substance dependence or abuse indicating a
-------------------------
<2> Steadman, H., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., Case, B., &
Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among
jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60(6), 761-765.
.
<3> Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families,
Children & the Courts. (2011). Task Force for Criminal Justice
Collaboration on Mental Health Issues: Final Report.
.
<4> Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice. (2010). Juvenile
Justice Policy Brief Series: Mental Health Issues in
California's Juvenile Justice System.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageJ
larger issue with co-occurring disorders among mentally
ill offenders.<5>
1.Increased Rates of Recidivism Among Mentally Ill Offenders
A 2012 review conducted by the Utah Criminal Justice Center
found that released inmates with serious mental illness
experience poorer outcomes overall as they are "twice as likely
to have their probation or parole revoked, are at an elevated
risk for rearrest, incarceration, and homelessness, lack skills
to obtain and sustain employment, and have higher rates of
medical problems." <6>
In 2009, the Council of State Governors Justice Center released
a report entitled Improving Outcomes for People with Mental
Illnesses under Community Corrections Supervision, which stated
that the reasons for increased recidivism among mental ill
offenders may be multifaceted:
Once people with mental illnesses are finally released, it
is often extremely difficult for them to successfully
transition from incarceration to the community. Their
mental illnesses may be linked to community corrections
supervision failure in a number of ways. Skeem and Loudon
have characterized these links as being direct, indirect,
or spurious.
-------------------------
<5> Treatment Advocacy Center & National Sheriffs' Association.
(2010). More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than
Hospitals: A Survey of States.
<6> University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center. (2012).
Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A Review of the
Literature.
.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageK
First, mental illnesses may directly result in probation or
parole revocation. For example, an individual may not
access treatment, leading him or her to decompensate,
behave in a bizarre or dangerous manner in public, get
arrested for this behavior, and have his or her probation
revoked.
Second, mental illnesses may indirectly result in
revocation. For example, an individual with clinical
depression may have impaired functioning that prevents him
or her from maintaining employment and paying court ordered
fines, which are standard conditions of release. Notably,
many people with mental illnesses returning to the
community from jail or prison lack financial or social
supports. Some were receiving Medicaid and other forms of
public assistance at the time of their arrest, and these
benefits are typically terminated rather than suspended
during incarceration, and rarely reinstated immediately
upon release. In short, there is often no safety net to
compensate for functional impairments that may place
individuals with mental illnesses at risk for revocation.
Third, mental illnesses may not result in revocation.
Instead, the relationship between the two may be
spurious-that is, more apparent than real-because a third
variable associated with mental illness causes revocation.
For example, an individual with bipolar disorder may be at
risk of committing a new offense not because of his or her
mental illness, but because of criminogenic attitudes or
affiliation with antisocial peers. Alternatively, an
individual with psychosis may be monitored exceptionally
closely and revoked readily by his or her probation
officer, given that traditional supervision strategies
often reflect misconceptions about (and stigma associated
with) mental illness.<7>
CDCR data shows higher rates of recidivism in inmates identified
---------------------------
<7>
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023634.pdf.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageL
with mental health issues when compared to those without. Upon
release, inmates exhibiting mental health problems are assigned
one of two mental health services designations: Enhanced
Outpatient Program (EOP) or Correctional Clinical Case
Management System (CCCMS). Inmates with severe mental illness
expected to experience difficulty transitioning out of
corrections are designated as EOP and receive treatment at a
level similar to day treatment services in the community, while
inmates receiving CCCMS services are housed within the general
population and participate on an outpatient basis. In the 2012
CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, 76.7 percent of first-release
inmates with an EOP designation recidivated after three years,
compared to lower rates found in CCCMS designees (70.6 percent)
and those without a designation (62 percent).<8>
According to a 2005 CDCR report, mental health issues "comprised
the single most critical gap in juvenile justice services. ...
According to those surveyed, the number of at-risk youth and
youthful offenders with mental health problems continues to
increase as does the seriousness of their mental illnesses. The
only thing not increasing is the resources to treat and confine
these troubled and troubling youth." Even if juvenile offenders
receive assistance, absence of treatment after release may
contribute to a path of behavior that includes continued
delinquency and adult criminality.<9>
2.Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (1998-2008)
In 1998, the Legislature passed SB 1485 (Rosenthal) establishing
the Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grants (MIOCRG)
program. Under SB 1485, the Board of Corrections (what is 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,
---------------------------
<8>
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/A
RB_FY_0708_Recidivism_Report_10.23.12.pdf.
<9> California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
(2005). Status Report on Juvenile Justice Reform.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageM
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.<10>
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
convicted than were those receiving treatment as usual
(TAU). Fewer participants served time in jail and,
-----------------------
<10> California Board of Corrections. (2005). Mentally Ill
Offender Crime Reduction Grant Program: Overview of Statewide
Evaluation Findings.
.
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageN
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.<11>
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
(More)
--------------------
<11> See Footnote 10.
1.What this Bill Would Do
SB 1054 would reestablish the MIOCRG program with four primary
differences from its previous incarnation:
a. SB 1054 explicit allocates one-half of the funds to
adult offenders and one-half of the funds to juvenile
offenders. The earlier MIOCRG program made no special
designations by age group, but through the Budget Act of
2006, juvenile justice grants were later added.
b. SB 1054 would not require the Board of State and
Community Corrections to consult with state health
agencies in awarding grants, establishing guidelines, or
designing outcome indicators. Under previous
legislation, the grant entity was required to consult
with the State Department of Mental Health and the
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
c. SB 1054 allows grants to be awarded to specialized
alternative custody programs that offer appropriate
mental health treatment and services. Previous
legislation prevented the use of grants towards programs
providing an alternative to incarceration.
d. SB 1054 draws funds from the newly created
Recidivism Reduction Fund. (SB 105, Steinberg - 2013,
Ch. 310, Stats.)
2.AB 109 Realignment Effects on Mentally Ill Offenders
A 2012 report from the Stanford Law School, Stanford Criminal
Justice Center examining the effects of realignment on mentally
ill offenders highlights several key considerations:
Although it is still unclear to what degree,
severely and moderately mentally ill offenders will be
realigned to local correctional systems as jurisdiction
over non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenses moves
from the state to local level.
Because county jails are not required to provide
mental health services as state prisons are, many local
correctional systems are ill-equipped to meet the needs
(More)
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageP
of mentally ill offenders and lack sufficient treatment,
services, and coordination among service providers.
Mentally ill offenders realigned in counties with a
progressive approach to mental health care may fare
better under realignment. However, because mental health
services vary by county, the treatment of mentally ill
offenders is also likely to vary.
Realignment may also create unintended consequences
for mentally ill offenders in state prisons where they
are more likely to be victimized and face "a more
hardened prison population." <12>
SB 1054 may help address the critical needs of the offender
population as counties face these new challenges and begin to
develop long-term strategic planning on how to best identify and
serve mentally ill offenders at the local level. According to
the author, "This [MIOCRG] program can? create better
alternatives for counties under realignment, and bring
desperately needed treatment for those struggling with mental
illness."
1.Technical Suggestions: Mentally Ill Juvenile Offender Population
As currently drafted, this bill may not fully describe on a
technical basis the mentally ill juvenile offender population
for which the bill is designed. Additionally, the application
requirements, grant guidelines, and BSCC considerations in grant
administration and evaluation may not duly reflect what is
necessary to serve both adult and juvenile offender populations
equally and effectively. The author's office has advised
Committee staff that the author intends to tighten the bill's
provisions with regard to these issues.
Additionally, the 2005 MIOCRG Final Report determined that many
counties conducted independent investigations of cost benefits
---------------------------
<12>
http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/child-page/183091
/doc/slspublic/Davis_AB109_And_Mentally_Ill_Offenders.pdf
SB 1054 (Steinberg)
PageQ
and/or cost effectiveness of their projects, but due to the
unique approach counties employed, these results were not
readily comparable. The Committee and author may wish to
consider including a cost benefit analysis in the evaluation of
grants under Section 6045.b(a) and requiring participating
counties to collect necessary data.
***************