Existing law requires that a sports trading card that is altered or refurbished be accompanied by a certificate stating, among other things, the exact work done and the name of the person who performed the work.

This bill would require that the certificate also contain the email address and the Internet Web site URL for the person who performed the alteration or refurbishing.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 870

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/15/18

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 1/16/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court makes specified findings concerning the defendant's mental health.

ANALYSIS: Existing law states that upon conviction of any felony in which the defendant is sentenced to state prison, and the court makes any of the findings listed below, a court shall, in addition to any other terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions, recommend in writing that the defendant participate in a counseling or education program having a substance abuse component while imprisoned:

1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
2. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
3. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages; or,
4. That the offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted are drug related. (Pen. Code, § 1203.096.)

This bill requires a court to recommend in writing that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court finds that either of the following is true:

1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was suffering from a serious mental illness; or
2. The defendant has a demonstrated history of mental illness.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/15/18)

California Chronic Care Coalition

National Alliance on Mental Illness – California

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/15/18)

California Public Defenders Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the California Chronic Care Coalition, “Our organization recognizes that mental health and treatment access is [a] major issue impacting families and communities across the state. Not only is it imperative that action be taken, but appropriate services need to be provided to patients who have unique needs. Being incarcerated already exposes individuals to a wide range of challenges and these are further worsened when a mental illness goes undiagnosed.

“AB 870 takes a long-overdue and necessary step in helping prisoners receive a mental health evaluation so their condition can be appropriately treated.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California Public Defenders Association, “. . . AB 870, as written, could expose defendants to additional punishment or deprivation of liberty. Of particular concern is the possibility that the mental health evaluations that the bill contemplates could become the basis for a commitment for a defendant as a mentally disordered offender or a sexually violent predator.

“To address this concern we suggest a minor amendment to the bill, which would ensure that any mental health evaluation cannot be used for any purpose without the defendant’s consent: ‘A finding that the defendant suffers from a mental disorder, any progress reports concerning the defendant’s treatment, or any other records created pursuant to this section may not be used for any purpose other than treatment and in particular may not be used in connection with any court proceeding without the defendant’s consent.’”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 72-0, 1/16/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bonta, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gray, Mullin

Prepared by:

5/16/18 9:54:26

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 870 Hearing Date: May 15, 2018

Subject: Prisoners: Mental Health Treatment

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 154 (Levine), 2017, vetoed

AB 2263 (Levine), 2016, held in Assembly Appropriations

AB 1006 (Levine), 2015, held in Assembly Appropriations

SB 1054 (Steinberg), Ch. 436, Stats. 2014

SB 1323 (Cedillo), 2006, held in Senate Appropriations

Support: California Chronic Care Coalition; National Alliance on Mental Illness – California; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

Opposition: California Public Defenders Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 72 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court makes specified findings concerning the defendant's mental health.

Existing law states that upon conviction of any felony in which the defendant is sentenced to state prison, and the court makes any of the findings listed below, a court shall, in addition to any other terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions, recommend in writing that the defendant participate in a counseling or education program having a substance abuse component while imprisoned:

• That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
• That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
• That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages; or,
• That the offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted are drug related. (Pen. Code, § 1203.096.)

This bill requires a court to recommend in writing that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court finds that either of the following is true:

• That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was suffering from a serious mental illness; or
• The defendant has a demonstrated history of mental illness.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

Jails and prisons have become California’s de facto mental health facilities for those who are mentally ill being far more likely to be incarcerated than to be in a psychiatric hospital. Incarcerating those with mental illness does not make sense from an outcomes or a fiscal stand point. Studies have found that individuals who participate in mental health courts reoffend one third of the time than those who do not and that participants show significant improvement in quality of life. Furthermore, mental health courts have been demonstrated to save $7 in costs for every $1 spent. It costs $70,812 a year to house an inmate, and about $20,412 to house and treat a person with mental illness. AB 870 gives the court the ability to consider the presence of a mental illness in criminal sentencing. (http://www.lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost)

It is estimated that 45% of the state’s prison population is living with a mental illness. In the last 15 years the number of people with mental health issues in prison has almost doubled. The Los Angeles County Jail has been called “the largest mental health provider in the country.”

Conditions in prison typically exacerbate mental illness. In fact, the courts have found prisons have “failed to deliver necessary care to mentally ill inmates.”

Studies have found individuals who participate in mental health courts re-offend one third of the time less than those who do not, and participant’s show significant improvement in quality of life.

Current law limits a judges sentencing to the statutory time required to serve. While judges can prescribe diversionary programs for substance abuse and make recommendations for treatment for substance abuse, they lack statutory authority to require mental health treatment or supervision.

2. Growing Population of Mentally Ill Inmates

A 2015 Stanford Law School report found that the number of mentally ill people in California’s state prisons have almost doubled in the past 15 years. (Mills, Romano and Steinberg, When did prisons become acceptable mental healthcare facilities? Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project (Feb. 12, 2015).) The report defines “mentally ill prisoner” as an inmate suffering from a serious mental illness, as diagnosed by the prison Mental Health Delivery System.

According to the report, approximately 45 percent of prison inmates had been treated for severe mental illness the previous year. The report also found that once a mentally ill offender is in the criminal system, they tend to be subjected to harsher sentencing than others for the same crimes: “despite rules of court in California designed to mitigate punishments for mentally ill offenders, the average sentence imposed on defendants suffering from mental illness is longer than the

average sentence imposed on defendants who do not have mental health diagnosis but who committed the same crime. Unfortunately this is true across every category of crime in California. For example, the average sentence for burglary imposed on mentally ill defendants is 30 percent longer than the average sentence for non-mentally ill defendants convicted of the same crime.” Additionally, “[w]hen it comes time to be considered for release, once again the mentally ill fare miserably. For example, the number of mentally ill prisoners denied relief under new resentencing laws enacted under Proposition 36 is three times greater than the number of non-mentally-ill prisoners who have been denied relief.” (Id. at 2.)

Once they are released from prison, the report found that mentally ill offenders are not provided with any treatment or services causing them to cycle back through the criminal justice system. “We provide virtually no effective mental health facilities and programs to help released prisoners who are in desperate need of mental health treatment. This service deficit naturally results in higher recidivism rates and an ongoing sense of social isolation and abandonment. And the cycle then begins again with new arrests, new prosecutions, new lengthy sentences, new impediments to release, and eventual release into a system that provides nothing but an inevitable, tragic trajectory back into the criminal justice system.” (Id. at 3.)

The report made three recommendations: (1) reform the way we sentence the mentally ill; (2) provide meaningful treatment in prison; and continue meaningful treatment after prison. (Id. at 3-4.) This bill attempts to address the first two recommendations by requiring a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation if certain findings are met.

1. Mental Health Services in Prison

According to a guide on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) Mental Health Services Delivery System:

Any inmate can be referred for mental health services at any time. Inmates who are not identified at Reception or upon arrival at an institution as needing mental health services, may develop such needs later. Any staff members that have concerns about an inmate’s mental stability are encouraged to refer that inmate for evaluation by a qualified mental health clinician (psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker). Under certain circumstances, referral to mental health may be mandatory. A referral to mental health should be made whenever:

• An inmate demonstrates possible symptoms of mental illness or a worsening of symptoms.
• An inmate verbalizes thoughts of suicide or self-harm behavior.
• Upon return from court when an inmate has received bad news such as a new sentence that may extend their time.
• An inmate has been identified as a possible victim per the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
• An inmate demonstrates sexually inappropriate behavior as per the Exhibitionism policy.
• An inmate who is written up for a disciplinary infraction was demonstrating bizarre, unusual, or uncharacteristic behavior when committing the infraction.
• An inmate placed into Administrative Segregation indicates suicidal potential on the prescreening, or rates positive on the mental health screening, or gives staff any reason to be concerned about the inmate’s mental stability, such as displaying excessive anxiety.
• Upon arrival to an institution when the inmate indicates prior mental health treatment and medications, especially if not previously documented.

Referrals to mental health may be made on an Emergent, Urgent, or Routine Basis. An inmate deemed to require an Emergent (immediate) referral shall be maintained under continuous staff observation until evaluated by a licensed mental health clinician. An Urgent referral is to be seen within 24 hours. A Routine referral should be seen within five working days.

Referrals are made on the CDCR-MH5, Mental Health Referral Chrono, and forwarded to the mental health office. Emergent and Urgent referrals should also be made by phone to facilitate a timely response. The referral chronos, when received at the mental health office, are logged, entered into the data tracking system, and scheduled for follow-up with the appropriate clinician.

Inmates may also self-refer for a clinical interview to discuss their mental health needs. Inmate self-referrals shall be collected daily from each housing unit, and processed the same way as staff referrals.

(CDCR, Mental Health Services Delivery Services, Program Guide Overview, p. 5 < https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/DHCS/docs/Mental%20Health%20Program%20Guide.pdf> [as of May 1, 2018].) This bill requires a court to recommend that a defendant receive a mental health evaluation in prison if certain findings are met, however according to CDCR inmates are already evaluated at Reception for mental health issues.

1. SB 154 Veto Message

This bill is substantially similar to SB 154 (Levine) from 2017. The bill passed through both houses and was vetoed by the current Governor. According to the Governor’s veto message:

This bill requires the sentencing court, after making specified findings, to provide a recommendation to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct a mental health evaluation on a defendant sentenced to state prison.

While I understand the author's intent, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation already conducts mental health evaluations on every defendant sentenced to state prison, regardless of a recommendation from the court.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 870

Author:(Levine)

As Amended Ver:January 3, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court makes specified findings concerning the defendant's mental health status. Specifically, this bill requires a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court finds that either of the following is true:

1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was suffering from a serious mental illness; or
2. The defendant has a demonstrated history of mental illness.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Finds and declares that the provision of probation services is an essential element in the administration of criminal justice. The safety of the public, which shall be a primary goal through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions of probation; the nature of the offense; the interests of justice, including punishment, reintegration of the offender into the community, and enforcement of conditions of probation; the loss to the victim; and the needs of the defendant shall be the primary considerations in the granting of probation.
2. In any case in which it appears to the person in charge of a county jail, city jail, or juvenile detention facility, or to any judge of a court in the county in which the jail or juvenile detention facility is located, that a person in custody in that jail or juvenile detention facility may be mentally disordered, he or she may cause the prisoner to be taken to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation and he or she shall inform the facility in writing, which shall be confidential, of the reasons that the person is being taken to the facility. The local mental health director or his or her designee may examine the prisoner prior to transfer to a facility for treatment and evaluation.
3. Where the court causes the prisoner to be transferred to a 72-hour facility, the court shall forthwith notify the local mental health director or his or her designee, the prosecuting attorney, and counsel for the prisoner in the criminal or juvenile proceedings about that transfer. Where the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility causes the transfer of the prisoner to a 72-hour facility the person shall immediately notify the local mental health director or his or her designee and each court within the county where the prisoner has a pending proceeding about the transfer. Upon notification by the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility the court shall forthwith notify counsel for the prisoner and the prosecuting attorney in the criminal or juvenile proceedings about that transfer.
4. If a prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, a mental health facility pursuant, the facility shall transmit a report, which shall be confidential, to the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility or judge of the court who caused the prisoner to be taken to the facility and to the local mental health director or his or her designee, concerning the condition of the prisoner. A new report shall be transmitted at the end of each period of confinement as specified, upon conversion to voluntary status, and upon filing of temporary letters of conservatorship.
5. A prisoner who has been transferred to an inpatient facility pursuant to this section may convert to voluntary inpatient status without obtaining the consent of the court, the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility, or the local mental health director. At the beginning of that conversion to voluntary status, the person in charge of the facility shall transmit a report to the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility or judge of the court who caused the prisoner to be taken to the facility, counsel for the prisoner, prosecuting attorney, and local mental health director or his or her designee.
6. If the prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, a mental health facility, the time passed in the facility shall count as part of the prisoner's sentence. When the prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, the facility, the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility shall advise the professional person in charge of the facility of the expiration date of the prisoner's sentence. If the prisoner is to be released from the facility before the expiration date, the professional person in charge shall notify the local mental health director or his or her designee, counsel for the prisoner, the prosecuting attorney, and the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility, who shall send for, take, and receive the prisoner back into the jail or juvenile detention facility.
7. A defendant, either charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, or a minor alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, may be concurrently subject to mental health detention as specified by law under the Welfare and Institutions Code.
8. If a prisoner is detained in a mental health facility pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code and if the person in charge of the facility determines that arraignment or trial would be detrimental to the well-being of the prisoner, the time spent in the facility shall not be computed in any statutory time requirements for arraignment or trial in any pending criminal or juvenile proceedings. Otherwise, this section shall not affect any statutory time requirements for arraignment or trial in any pending criminal or juvenile proceedings.
9. States that upon conviction of any felony in which the defendant is sentenced to state prison, and the court makes any of the findings listed below, a court shall, in addition to any other terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions, recommend in writing that the defendant participate in a counseling or education program having a substance abuse component while imprisoned:
   1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages;
   2. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any controlled substance;
   3. That the defendant has a demonstrated history of substance abuse; and
   4. That the offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted are drug related.

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Jails and prisons have become California's de facto mental health facilities with those who are mentally ill being far more likely to be incarcerated than to be in a psychiatric hospital. Incarcerating those with mental illness does not make sense from an outcomes or a fiscal stand point. Studies have found that individuals who participate in mental health courts reoffend one third of the time than those who do not and that participants show significant improvement in quality of life. Furthermore, mental health courts have been demonstrated to save $7 in costs for every $1 spent. It costs $51,000 a year to house an inmate, and $20,412 to house and treat a person with mental illness. AB 870 gives the court the ability to consider the presence of a mental illness in criminal sentencing."

Analysis Prepared by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002516

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 870

Author:(Levine) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2018

SUMMARY: Requires a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court makes specified findings concerning the defendant's mental health status. Specifically, this bill requires a court to recommend that a defendant sentenced to state prison receive a mental health evaluation, if the court finds that either of the following is true:

1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was suffering from a serious mental illness; or
2. The defendant has a demonstrated history of mental illness.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Finds and declares that the provision of probation services is an essential element in the administration of criminal justice. The safety of the public, which shall be a primary goal through the enforcement of court-ordered conditions of probation; the nature of the offense; the interests of justice, including punishment, reintegration of the offender into the community, and enforcement of conditions of probation; the loss to the victim; and the needs of the defendant shall be the primary considerations in the granting of probation. (Pen. Code, § 1202.7.)
2. In any case in which it appears to the person in charge of a county jail, city jail, or juvenile detention facility, or to any judge of a court in the county in which the jail or juvenile detention facility is located, that a person in custody in that jail or juvenile detention facility may be mentally disordered, he or she may cause the prisoner to be taken to a facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation and he or she shall inform the facility in writing, which shall be confidential, of the reasons that the person is being taken to the facility. The local mental health director or his or her designee may examine the prisoner prior to transfer to a facility for treatment and evaluation. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
3. Where the court causes the prisoner to be transferred to a 72-hour facility, the court shall forthwith notify the local mental health director or his or her designee, the prosecuting attorney, and counsel for the prisoner in the criminal or juvenile proceedings about that transfer. Where the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility causes the transfer of the prisoner to a 72-hour facility the person shall immediately notify the local mental health director or his or her designee and each court within the county where the prisoner has a pending proceeding about the transfer. Upon notification by the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility the court shall forthwith notify counsel for the prisoner and the prosecuting attorney in the criminal or juvenile proceedings about that transfer. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
4. If a prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, a mental health facility pursuant, the facility shall transmit a report, which shall be confidential, to the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility or judge of the court who caused the prisoner to be taken to the facility and to the local mental health director or his or her designee, concerning the condition of the prisoner. A new report shall be transmitted at the end of each period of confinement as specified, upon conversion to voluntary status, and upon filing of temporary letters of conservatorship. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
5. A prisoner who has been transferred to an inpatient facility pursuant to this section may convert to voluntary inpatient status without obtaining the consent of the court, the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility, or the local mental health director. At the beginning of that conversion to voluntary status, the person in charge of the facility shall transmit a report to the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility or judge of the court who caused the prisoner to be taken to the facility, counsel for the prisoner, prosecuting attorney, and local mental health director or his or her designee. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
6. If the prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, a mental health facility, the time passed in the facility shall count as part of the prisoner's sentence. When the prisoner is detained in, or remanded to, the facility, the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility shall advise the professional person in charge of the facility of the expiration date of the prisoner's sentence. If the prisoner is to be released from the facility before the expiration date, the professional person in charge shall notify the local mental health director or his or her designee, counsel for the prisoner, the prosecuting attorney, and the person in charge of the jail or juvenile detention facility, who shall send for, take, and receive the prisoner back into the jail or juvenile detention facility. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
7. A defendant, either charged with or convicted of a criminal offense, or a minor alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, may be concurrently subject to mental health detention as specified by law under the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
8. If a prisoner is detained in a mental health facility pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code and if the person in charge of the facility determines that arraignment or trial would be detrimental to the well-being of the prisoner, the time spent in the facility shall not be computed in any statutory time requirements for arraignment or trial in any pending criminal or juvenile proceedings. Otherwise, this section shall not affect any statutory time requirements for arraignment or trial in any pending criminal or juvenile proceedings. (Pen. Code, § 4011.6.)
9. States that upon conviction of any felony in which the defendant is sentenced to state prison, and the court makes any of the findings listed below, a court shall, in addition to any other terms of imprisonment, fine, and conditions, recommend in writing that the defendant participate in a counseling or education program having a substance abuse component while imprisoned:
   1. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any alcoholic beverages; (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(1).)
   2. That the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense was under the influence of any controlled substance; (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(2).)
   3. That the defendant has a demonstrated history of substance abuse; and (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(3).)
   4. That the offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted are drug related. (Pen. Code, § 1203.096, subd. (b)(4).)
      

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Jails and prisons have become California’s de facto mental health facilities with those who are mentally ill being far more likely to be incarcerated than to be in a psychiatric hospital. Incarcerating those with mental illness does not make sense from an outcomes or a fiscal stand point. Studies have found that individuals who participate in mental health courts reoffend one third of the time than those who do not and that participants show significant improvement in quality of life. Furthermore, mental health courts have been demonstrated to save $7 in costs for every $1 spent. It costs $51,000 a year to house an inmate, and $20,412 to house and treat a person with mental illness. AB 870 gives the court the ability to consider the presence of a mental illness in criminal sentencing.”
   
2. SB 154 (Levine) Was Vetoed by the Governor: SB 154 (Levine), contained the same provisions as this bill. SB 154 was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor’s veto message was as follows:
   

This bill requires the sentencing court, after making specified findings, to provide a recommendation to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct a mental health evaluation on a defendant sentenced to state prison.

While I understand the author's intent, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation already conducts mental health evaluations on every defendant sentenced to state prison, regardless of a recommendation from the court.

1. 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]

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 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.

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 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]

1. Michigan: The state of Michigan passed Senate Bill 558 in 2014. That law requires county law enforcement and community mental health service programs, in coordination with courts and other key local partners, to create policies and practices that would provide mental health treatment and assistance to individuals with mental illness. Specifically, the policies and practices created would focus on individuals who are considered at risk of entering the criminal justice system; who not receiving needed mental health services during incarceration in a county jail or state prison; and who are not receiving needed mental health treatment services upon release or discharge from a county jail.

http://michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57577-323279--,00.html

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. SB 154 (Levine), contained the same provisions as this bill. SB 154 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   2. AB 620 (Holden), would have required CDCR to provide trauma focused therapy to qualified inmates. AB 620 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2262 (Levine), of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, would have allowed the court to order the defendant to serve part of his or her sentence in a residential mental health treatment facility or order the defendant placed in a mental health program in the state prison or county jail, if the defendant had a diagnosable mental condition. AB 2262 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 1006 (Levine), of the 2015-16 Legislative Session, would have allowed the court to order the defendant to serve part of his or her sentence in a residential mental health treatment facility or order the defendant placed in a mental health program in the state prison or county jail, if the defendant had a diagnosable mental condition. AB 1006 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 1054 (Steinberg), Chapter 436, Statutes of 2014, clarifies that mental health grants be divided equally between adult and juvenile mentally ill offender crime reduction grants and streamline the grant process.
      
   4. SB 1323 (Cedillo), of the 2005-06 Legislative Session, would have appropriated $350,000 from the General Fund to the department for allocation, over 5 years, to the County of Los Angeles, at the consent of the county, for the purpose of funding one position to work, in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, on a 5‑year Prototype Court Pilot Program for nonviolent felony offenders in the state who have been identified as having both serious mental health and substance abuse problems. SB 1323 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   5. SB 643 (Ortiz), of the 2001-02 Legislative Session, would have enacted the Mental Health Enhancement and Crime Prevention Act of 2001, which would require the board to reimburse counties meeting specified requirements for the excess cost of providing more effective psychotropic medications to inmates in county correctional facilities during their incarceration and after release. SB 643 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/comio/Legislation.html ↑

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. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487344>. ↑

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. <http://www.mentalcompetency.org/resources/guides-standards/files/California%20Mental%20Health%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf>. ↑

4. Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice. (2010). Juvenile Justice Policy Brief Series: Mental Health Issues in California’s Juvenile Justice System. <https://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/BCCJ_Mental_Health_Policy_Brief_May_2010.pdf> ↑

5. Treatment Advocacy Center & National Sheriffs’ Association. (2010). More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of States. <http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/final_jails_v_hospitals_study.pdf> ↑

6. University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center. (2012). Treating Offenders with Mental Illness: A Review of the Literature. <http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/MIO-butters-6-30-12-FINAL.pdf>. ↑

7. https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023634.pdf. ↑

8. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY_0708_Recidivism_Report_10.23.12.pdf. ↑

9. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2005). Status Report on Juvenile Justice Reform. ↑