BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1769
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 9, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Carole Migden, Chairwoman
SB 1769 (Chesbro) - As Amended: June 7, 2000
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-2
Health 9-5
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Allows, as a component of a comprehensive mental health plan
for each county, the development and implementation of a
mental health court and specifies the objectives and
requirements of such a court.
2)Requires the Board of Corrections (BOC) to encourage counties
to submit crime reduction grant proposals that establish or
implement a mental health court.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible costs for the BOC to encourage counties to include
mental health courts in grant proposals, but by requiring the
BOC - which awards the grants - to encourage counties to
propose mental health courts, it can be argued that this bill
essentially creates a new program by redirecting funds from an
existing program. To the extent the bill redirects funding,
the bill is a Suspense File candidate.
2)No cost to authorize counties to include mental health courts
as part of a comprehensive mental health plan.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author hopes to encourage mental health court
grant proposals, noting that in July 1999, the U.S. Department
of Justice reported that there were about 11,500 mentally ill
SB 1769
Page 2
inmates in California county jails. According to the Pacific
Research Institute, California's annual jail and probation
costs for mentally ill offenders exceed $300 million.
1)Background . In 1998, the Legislature initiated a $30 million
program to reduce crime, jail crowding and criminal justice
costs related to mentally ill offenders by establishing the
Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction Grant program (MIOCRG),
which requires the BOC to provide competitive grants to local
strategies for addressing recidivism among mentally ill
offenders. The 1999-00 state budget provided an additional $27
million to MIOCRG and the 2000-01 state budget appropriated
another $50 million.
1)Issue . Since the point of MIOCRG is to encourage
locally-developed mental health proposals, why should the
Legislature require the state to encourage one proposal over
another? The committee should consider deleting Section 2 of
the bill to encourage and protect local autonomy in this area.
1)Mental Health Court. This bill specifies that a mental health
court should provide a single point of contact where a
defendant with a mental disability may receive court-ordered
treatment and services in connection with a diversion from
prosecution, a sentencing alternative, or a term of probation
and meet the following objectives:
a) Increased cooperation between the criminal justice and
mental health systems.
b) Faster case processing.
c) Improved access to services.
d) Reduced recidivism.
1)Recent Experience . Several counties are beginning to operate
mental health courts. As of yet, there are no substantive
evaluations.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916)319-2081