SB 910: Treatment court program standards.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2024-09-27
Current Status:
Passed
(2024-09-27: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 641, Statutes of 2024.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill requires counties and courts that run treatment court programs to follow state and national guidelines that incorporate the Adult and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. It says programs must integrate behavioral health treatment with court processes, use a cooperative approach by prosecutors and defense lawyers, identify and place eligible high‑risk participants quickly, provide a continuum of evidence‑based services, use frequent drug testing, and ensure equitable access. The bill also requires a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to help participants succeed, ongoing judicial contact, and monitoring and evaluation, and directs the Judicial Council to update its court standards to reflect these practices.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require, for counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise, with consideration for the court system within which the program operates. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in criminal adult treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require, for counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise, with consideration for the court system within which the program operates. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in criminal adult treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require, for counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. Rise, with consideration for the court system within which the program operates. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in criminal adult treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require, for counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require, for counties that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require require, for counties that opt to have treatment court programs, that the treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. The bill would revise the above-described statement of legislative intent regarding key components to be included in treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with specified standards developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee. Existing law further states the intent of the Legislature that key programs of the drug court programs include, among other things, integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services.
This bill would instead require that treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise. The bill would revise the key components to be included in treatment court programs, including requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. The bill would require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs including those described in these provisions.
Existing law prescribes the information required to be included in a warrant of arrest, including the name of the defendant, the time it is issued, and the city or county where the warrant is issued.This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.Existing law prescribes the information required to be included in a warrant of arrest, including the name of the defendant, the time it is issued, and the city or county where the warrant is issued.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Professionals), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates. It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)Counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals). It is the intent of the Legislature that key components of the programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)Counties that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals). It is the intent of the Legislature that the key components of the programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that Counties that opt to have treatment court programs be shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals). It is the intent of the Legislature that the key components of the programs include:
(1)Integration by treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the treatment court program.
(4)Access provided by treatment courts to a continuum of substance use and other behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each treatment court participant at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(10)Forging partnerships among treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance treatment court program effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
(a)It is the intent of the Legislature that drug treatment court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the document entitled Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). Professionals). It is the intent of the Legislature that the key components of the programs include:
(a)(1)Integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment courts of behavioral health treatment services with justice system case processing.
(b)(2)Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach.
(c)(3)Early identification of eligible participants from the appropriate high-risk and high-need target population and prompt placement in the drug treatment court program.
(d)(4)Access provided by drug treatment courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, substance use and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. behavioral health treatment and social services that are evidence based and meet the specific needs of the participant.
(e)(5)Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence.
(f) A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants compliance.(6)A system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
(g)(7)Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug treatment court participant is essential. at the needed frequency to meet the needs of the participant.
(h)(8)Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
(i)(9)Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug treatment court planning, implementation, and operations.
(j)(10)Forging partnerships among drug treatment courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug treatment court program effectiveness. effectiveness and to coordinate access to needed complementary services outside the program.
(11)Working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
(b)No later than January 1, 2026, the Judicial Council shall revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in subdivision (a).
SECTION 1.Section 815 of the Penal Code is amended to read:815.A warrant of arrest shall specify all of the following:(a)The name of the defendant or, if it is unknown to the magistrate, judge, justice, or other issuing authority, the defendant may be designated therein by any name.(b)The time of issuing the warrant.(c)The city or county where the warrant is issued.(d)The signature of the magistrate, judge, justice, or other issuing authority issuing the warrant, including the title of their office and the name of the court or other issuing agency.A warrant of arrest shall specify the all of the following:
(a)The name of the defendant or, if it is unknown to the magistrate, judge, justice, or other issuing authority, the defendant may be designated therein by any name. It shall also state the
(b)The time of issuing it, and the the warrant.
(c)The city or county where it the warrant is issued, and shall be signed by the issued.
(d)The signature of the magistrate, judge, justice, or other issuing authority issuing it with the warrant, including the title of his their office and the name of the court or other issuing agency.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2024 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 641, Statutes of 2024. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 10, 2024 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Aug 30, 2024 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 5747.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Aug 29, 2024 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Aug 28, 2024 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Aug 28, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 6714.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Aug 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 19, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 15, 2024 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 15). |
| Aug 7, 2024 | August 7 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 6, 2024 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 3, 2024 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| May 23, 2024 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| May 22, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 4135.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3963.) (May 16). |
| May 10, 2024 | Set for hearing May 16. |
| May 6, 2024 | May 6 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | Set for hearing May 6. |
| Apr 23, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3729.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 17, 2024 | Set for hearing April 23. |
| Apr 15, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB S. |
| Apr 11, 2024 | From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on PUB S. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3560.) (April 10). |
| Mar 20, 2024 | Set for hearing April 10. |
| Mar 6, 2024 | Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and PUB S. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Feb 14, 2024 | Referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Jan 9, 2024 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 8. |
| Jan 8, 2024 | Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 2024 | Special Consent SB910 Umberg et al. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 28, 2024 | SB 910 Umberg Senate Third Reading By Kalra | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 15, 2024 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 18, 2024 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 22, 2024 | Senate 3rd Reading SB910 Umberg et al. | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 16, 2024 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 6, 2024 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 23, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| Apr 10, 2024 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Public Safety] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Health |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals | ** Support | |
| City of Bakersfield | ** Support | |
| City Of San Diego | ** Support | |
| Smart Justice California | ** Support |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 910 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 910
Author: Umberg (D), et al.
Amended: 8/19/24
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/10/24
AYES: Roth, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wiener
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/23/24
AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/22/24
AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/28/24 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Treatment court program standards
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified state and national guidelines; updates drug treatment court program standards; and, makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
Assembly Amendments
apply the provisions in this bill to courts, in addition to counties, that opt to have treatment court programs.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. [HSC §11970.5]
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. [HSC §11971]
- States legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). States Legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of SUD treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness. [HSC §11972]
This bill:
- Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, founded as the NADCP. Revises key components of programs to conform with the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in 1) above.
- Makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs).
Comments
- Author’s statement. According to the author:
As part of the Senate’s bill package to combat the fentanyl crisis, “Working Together for a Safer California,” this bill would require that drug court programs (also known as collaborative courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. Drug courts provide an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with a SUD. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation. All Rise is a nonprofit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their standards, which create a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
- NADCP and treatment courts. According to its website, NADCP rebranded as All Rise to capture better the work they have done and will do in the years ahead. All Rise is the training, membership, and advocacy organization for justice system innovation, addressing MH/SUDs for individuals at every intercept point. Through its four divisions (the Treatment Court Institute [founded as the National Drug Court Institute], Impaired Driving Solutions [founded as the National Center for DWI Courts], Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice), All Rise will continue to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery. The website further states that treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with MH/SUDs. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services. This bill updates law to reflect the rebranding and updated treatment court standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to Judicial Council, likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars. Judicial Council estimates one-time costs of $1.52 million and ongoing costs of $1.46 million to develop and provide annual, regional trainings and technical assistance to help the courts come into compliance with the new best practice standards and update court practices when the best practice standards are updated in the future. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable workload costs to update its standards of judicial administration, and requests delayed implementation of the bill's court compliance requirements until after the standards of judicial administration are updated.
“The 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/24)
California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
City of Bakersfield
City of San Diego
Smart Justice California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/28/24
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Chen, Ortega
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
8/29/24 11:33:21
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 910 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 910
Author: Umberg (D), et al.
Amended: 8/19/24
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/10/24
AYES: Roth, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wiener
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/23/24
AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/22/24
AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/28/24
(Roll call vote not available)
SUBJECT: Treatment court program standards
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified state and national guidelines; updates drug treatment court program standards; and, makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
Assembly Amendments
apply the provisions in this bill to courts, in addition to counties, that opt to have treatment court programs.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. [HSC §11970.5]
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. [HSC §11971]
- States legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). States Legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of SUD treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness. [HSC §11972]
This bill:
- Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, founded as the NADCP. Revises key components of programs to conform with the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in 1) above.
- Makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs).
Comments
- Author’s statement. According to the author:
As part of the Senate’s bill package to combat the fentanyl crisis, “Working Together for a Safer California,” this bill would require that drug court programs (also known as collaborative courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. Drug courts provide an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with a SUD. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation. All Rise is a nonprofit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their standards, which create a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
- NADCP and treatment courts. According to its website, NADCP rebranded as All Rise to capture better the work they have done and will do in the years ahead. All Rise is the training, membership, and advocacy organization for justice system innovation, addressing MH/SUDs for individuals at every intercept point. Through its four divisions (the Treatment Court Institute [founded as the National Drug Court Institute], Impaired Driving Solutions [founded as the National Center for DWI Courts], Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice), All Rise will continue to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery. The website further states that treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with MH/SUDs. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services. This bill updates law to reflect the rebranding and updated treatment court standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to Judicial Council, likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars. Judicial Council estimates one-time costs of $1.52 million and ongoing costs of $1.46 million to develop and provide annual, regional trainings and technical assistance to help the courts come into compliance with the new best practice standards and update court practices when the best practice standards are updated in the future. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable workload costs to update its standards of judicial administration, and requests delayed implementation of the bill's court compliance requirements until after the standards of judicial administration are updated.
“The 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.”
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/27/24)
California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
City of Bakersfield
City of San Diego
Smart Justice California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/27/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime.Click or tap here to enter text.
Click here to enter text.
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
8/28/24 22:39:36
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 910
Author:(Umberg)
As Amended Ver:August 19, 2024
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified standards.
Major Provisions
- Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the state and national guidelines incorporating the "Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards" and "Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards" developed by All Rise, (formerly National Association of Drug Court Professionals ("NADC"), with consideration for the distinct court system within which the program operates.
- Modifies the legislative intent of the key components of the criminal adult treatment court programs to ensure such programs to conform to the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Makes other conforming, non-substantive changes to legislative intent language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including the above treatment court programs.
COMMENTS
According to the Author
"SB 910 would require that drug court programs (also known as Collaborative Courts) be designed and operated in accordance with "Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards" developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
"Collaborative Courts are courts that promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. California has more than 400 collaborative courts including community, DUI, mental health, and drug courts. Each operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
"Drug courts provided an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with substance use disorder. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation.
"All Rise is a non-profit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their "Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standard" which creates a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation."
Arguments in Support
According to Smart Justice California "Collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. However, each of these courts operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
"SB 910 would require that collaborative drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the "Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards" and require Judicial Counsel to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs by January 2026."
Arguments in Opposition
None.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to Judicial Council, likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars. Judicial Council estimates one-time costs of $1.52 million and ongoing costs of $1.46 million to develop and provide annual, regional trainings and technical assistance to help the courts come into compliance with the new best practice standards and update court practices when the best practice standards are updated in the future. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable workload costs to update its standards of judicial administration, and requests delayed implementation of the bill's court compliance requirements until after the standards of judicial administration are updated.
"The 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years."
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1
YES: Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk
ABS, ABST OR NV: Allen
ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1
YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Zbur
ABS, ABST OR NV: Wilson
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta
UPDATED
VERSION: August 19, 2024
CONSULTANT: Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004019
Date of Hearing: August 7, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 910
Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 6, 2024
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 7 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires counties and courts that operate treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with state and national guidelines incorporating the best practice standards developed by All Rise.
The bill also requires Judicial Council to, by January 1, 2026, revise its standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including the Adult Treatment Court standards referenced above.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to Judicial Council, likely in the high hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars. Judicial Council estimates one-time costs of $1.52 million and ongoing costs of $1.46 million to develop and provide annual, regional trainings and technical assistance to help the courts come into compliance with the new best practice standards and update court practices when the best practice standards are updated in the future. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable workload costs to update its standards of judicial administration, and requests delayed implementation of the bill’s court compliance requirements until after the standards of judicial administration are updated.
The 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
Collaborative Courts are courts that promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. California has more than 400 collaborative courts including community, DUI, mental health, and drug courts. Each operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria…Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation.
- Background. Existing law permits a county to establish a drug court program to provide an alternative way to adjudicate criminal drug charges outside of a traditional court. If a county opts to establish a drug court program, the program must meet certain requirements established in the Drug Court Programs Act (Act). The Act states the intent of the Legislature that each drug court program in the state be designed and operated in accordance with a document titled “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee. NADCP is now known as All Rise. All Rise is a nonprofit training, membership, and advocacy organization that promotes the use of alternative courts that address substance use and mental health disorders.
In 2023, All Rise developed an updated version of its drug court best practices recommendations, titled “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards.” This bill requires a county that operates a drug court program to ensure its program is designed and operated in compliance with state and national guidelines incorporating these updated best practice standards.
Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: June 18, 2024
Counsel: Ilan Zur
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Kevin McCarty, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 910
Author:(Umberg) – As Amended Ver:June 6, 2024
SUMMARY: Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified standards. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires counties and courts that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the state and national guidelines incorporating the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, (formerly National Association of Drug Court (“NADC”).
- Modifies the legislative intent of the key components of the programs to ensure such programs to conform to the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Makes other conforming, non-substantive changes to legislative intent language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including the above treatment court programs.
EXISTING LAW:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. (Health and Saf. Code, §§ 11970.5, 11971.)
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (“SUD”) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. (Health and Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (a).)
- Requires the above plan to do all of the following:
- Describe existing programs that serve substance abusing adults, juveniles, and parents of children who are detained by, or are dependents of, the juvenile court;
- Provide a local action plan for implementing cost-effective drug court systems, including any or all of specified drug court systems;
- Develop information-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the local action plan in achieving its goals; and
- Identify outcome measures that will determine the cost effectiveness of the local action plan. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (c).)
- States that it is the intent of the Legislature that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the document entitled “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the NADCP and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004), and that key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a non-adversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11972.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, "SB 910 would require that drug court programs (also known as Collaborative Courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
“Collaborative Courts are courts that promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. California has more than 400 collaborative courts including community, DUI, mental health, and drug courts. Each operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
“Drug courts provided an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with substance use disorder. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation.
“All Rise is a non-profit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standard” which creates a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.”
- All Rise/NADCP and Treatment Courts: All Rise is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that provides training, membership and advocacy for justice system innovation addressing substance use and mental health.[1] All Rise was initially founded in 1994 as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, and recently changed their name to All Rise to capture better the intent and nature of their work.[2] All Rise is comprised of four divisions, the Treatment Court Institute, Impaired Driving, Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice, to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery.[3] According to All Rise “treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with [MH/SUDs]. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services.”[4] SB 910 updates existing law to reflect the rebranding of All Rise (formerly NDCP) and updated treatment court standards.[5]
- Broader Efforts to Address the Opioid Crisis: Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is a major contributor to drug overdose deaths. According to the California Department of Justice, in 2020, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 5,502 Californians died due to opioid overdose, and 3,946 died due to fentanyl overdose. The United States has experienced the overdose epidemic in three distinct but interconnected waves: an increase in deaths stemming from prescription opioid overdoses beginning in the 1990s, an increase in heroin deaths starting in 2010, and a more recent surge in deaths from other illicit opioids, primarily fentanyl and its analogues.”[6] This bill is part of the California Senate’s Safer California package related to fentanyl and other controlled substances that will increase access to treatment and enhanced addiction services for those in the criminal justice system.
- Argument in Support: According to Smart Justice California “Collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. However, each of these courts operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
“SB 910 would require that collaborative drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” and require Judicial Counsel to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs by January 2026.”
- Argument in Opposition: None
- Related Legislation: None
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 208 (Eggman), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2017, converts the existing deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program for specified drug-possession offenses into a pretrial drug diversion program.
- SB 1014 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2012, provides the statutory changes necessary to implement the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Realignment portions of the 2012 Budget Act.
- SB 1369 (Kopp), Chapter 1132, Statutes of 1996 makes deferred entry of judgment, instead of diversion, available to a person who pleads guilty to a drug offense and agrees to attend drug counseling
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Mayor Todd Gloria, City of San Diego
Smart Justice California, a Project of Tides Advocacy
Opposition: None
Analysis Prepared by: Ilan Zur
All Rise [accessed June 13, 2024], available at: https://allrise.org/about/ ↑
All Rise, We are All Rise, [accessed June 13, 2024], available at: https://allrise.org/news/we-are-all-rise/ ↑
All Rise [accessed June 13, 2024], available at: https://allrise.org/about/ ↑
All Rise, About Treatment Courts [accessed June 13, 2024], available at: https://allrise.org/about/treatment-courts/ ↑
All Rise, Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards (2023), available at: https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/All-Rise-Adult-Treatment-Court-Best-Practice-Standards-2nd-Ed.-I-VI_final.pdf ↑
Addressing the Fentanyl Crisis, California Department of Justice [accessed June 13, 2024], available at: https://oag.ca.gov/fentanyl ↑
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 910 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 910
Author: Umberg (D), et al.
Amended: 5/16/24
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/10/24
AYES: Roth, Nguyen, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Limón, Menjivar, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wiener
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 4/23/24
AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/16/24
AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab
SUBJECT: Treatment court program standards
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
Requires counties that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified standards; updates drug treatment court program standards; and, makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. [HSC §11970.5]
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. [HSC §11971]
- States Legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). States Legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of SUD treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness. [HSC §11972]
This bill:
- Requires counties that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, founded as the NADCP. Revises key components of programs to conform with the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in 1) above.
- Makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs).
COMMENTS:
- Author’s statement. According to the author:
As part of the Senate’s bill package to combat the fentanyl crisis, “Working Together for a Safer California,” this bill would require that drug court programs (also known as collaborative courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. Drug courts provide an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with a SUD. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation. All Rise is a nonprofit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their standards, which create a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
- NADCP and treatment courts. According to its website, NADCP rebranded as All Rise to capture better the work they have done and will do in the years ahead. All Rise is the training, membership, and advocacy organization for justice system innovation, addressing MH/SUDs for individuals at every intercept point. Through its four divisions (the Treatment Court Institute [founded as the National Drug Court Institute], Impaired Driving Solutions [founded as the National Center for DWI Courts], Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice), All Rise will continue to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery. The website further states that treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with MH/SUDs. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services. This bill updates law to reflect the rebranding and updated treatment court standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
The Judicial Council indicates there are currently 202 adult treatment courts comprised of drug, mental health, driving under the influence, and veteran treatment courts. These courts are all currently modeled after the All Rise standards; however, all of the courts will require updates and remodeling of court operations to comply with the latest All Rise standards. The Judicial Council estimates the following costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund):
- $61 million in one-time, implementation costs. This includes costs for information technology upgrades, technical assistance to the courts, training on the new requirements, and staff administration time;
- $56 million in ongoing, annual costs for staffing at both the court and council level and information technology costs associated with system costs, data collection, validation, and storage; and,
- Minor and absorbable workload to update the standards of judicial administration by January 1, 2026.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/24)
Smart Justice California
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/24)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters state that collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime.
Click here to enter text.
Prepared by: Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / (916) 651-4111
5/17/24 14:02:27
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 910 (Umberg) - Treatment court program standards
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
SB 910 would make updates to drug treatment court program standards.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on May 16, 2024
Fiscal Impact:
The Judicial Council indicates there are currently 202 adult treatment courts comprised of drug, mental health, driving under the influence, and veteran treatment courts. These courts are all currently modeled after the All Rise standards, however, all of the courts will require updates and remodeling of court operations to comply with the latest All Rise standards. The Judicial Council estimates the following costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund):
- $61 million in one-time, implementation costs. This includes costs for information technology upgrades, technical assistance to the courts, training on the new requirements, and staff administration time.
- $56 million in ongoing, annual costs for staffing at both the court and council level and information technology costs associated with system costs, data collection, validation, and storage.
- Minor and absorbable workload to update the standards of judicial administration by January 1, 2026.
Committee Amendments:
Add a co-author.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
SB 910 (Umberg) - Treatment court program standards
Version: April 15, 2024 | Policy Vote: HEALTH 11 - 0, PUB. S. 5 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: No |
Hearing Date: May 6, 2024 | Consultant: Agnes Lee |
Bill Summary:
SB 910 would make updates to drug treatment court program standards.
Fiscal Impact:
The Judicial Council indicates there are currently 202 adult treatment courts comprised of drug, mental health, driving under the influence, and veteran treatment courts. These courts are all currently modeled after the All Rise standards, however, all of the courts will require updates and remodeling of court operations to comply with the latest All Rise standards. The Judicial Council estimates the following costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund):
- $61 million in one-time, implementation costs. This includes costs for information technology upgrades, technical assistance to the courts, training on the new requirements, and staff administration time.
- $56 million in ongoing, annual costs for staffing at both the court and council level and information technology costs associated with system costs, data collection, validation, and storage.
- Minor and absorbable workload to update the standards of judicial administration by January 1, 2026.
Background:
Current law establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. Current law requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs.
Current law states legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004); and states legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of SUD treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness.
The NADCP has rebranded as “All Rise” and in 2023, published an updated version of their standards, which provide a set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
Proposed Law:
Specific provisions of the bill would:
- Update existing law related to drug treatment court program standards by replacing the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” document with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise; and require, rather than state legislative intent, that counties that opt to have treatment court programs use these standards.
- Revise key components of programs to conform with the new standards, such as working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Require the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: SB 910 Hearing Date: April 23, 2024
Author: | Umberg | ||
Version: | April 15, 2024 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | SC | ||
Subject: Treatment court program standards
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 208 (Eggman), Ch. 778, Stats. 2017
SB 1014 (Committee on Budget), Ch. 36, Stats. 2012
SB 1369 (Kopp), Chapter 1132, Statutes of 1996
Support: Smart Justice California
Opposition: None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require counties that opt to have treatment court programs to ensure programs are designed and operated in accordance with specified standards and make other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to intent language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
Existing law establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. (Health and Saf. Code, §11970.5.)
Existing law requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. (Health and Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires the plan to do all of the following:
- Describe existing programs that serve substance abusing adults, juveniles, and parents of children who are detained by, or are dependents of, the juvenile court;
- Provide a local action plan for implementing cost-effective drug court systems, including any or all of specified drug court systems;
- Develop information-sharing systems to ensure that county actions are fully coordinated, and to provide data for measuring the success of the local action plan in achieving its goals; and,
- Identify outcome measures that will determine the cost effectiveness of the local action plan. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11971, subd. (c).)
Existing law states Legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). States Legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11972.)
This bill states that courts that opt to have treatment court programs shall ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, founded as the NADCP.
This bill revises key components of treatment programs to conform with the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants, specifying the need for a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success, and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
This bill requires Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those listed in this bill.
COMMENTS
- Need for This Bill
According to the author of this bill:
SB 910 would require that drug court programs (also known as Collaborative Courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions and service adjustments to achieve participant success.
Collaborative Courts are courts that promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. California has more than 400 collaborative courts including community, DUI, mental health, and drug courts. Each operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
Drug courts provided an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with substance use disorder. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation.
All Rise is a non-profit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standard” which creates a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
- NADCP and Treatment Courts
According to its website, NADCP rebranded as All Rise to capture better the work they have done and will do in the years ahead. All Rise is the training, membership, and advocacy organization for justice system innovation, addressing MH/SUDs for individuals at every intercept point. Through its four divisions (the Treatment Court Institute [founded as the National Drug Court Institute], Impaired Driving Solutions [founded as the National Center for DWI Courts], Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice), All Rise will continue to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery. The website further states that treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with MH/SUDs. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services. (See < https://allrise.org/news/we-are-all-rise/> [as of Apr. 16, 2024].)
This bill updates law to reflect the rebranding and updated treatment court standards. (See https://allrise.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/All-Rise-Adult-Treatment-Court-Best-Practice-Standards-2nd-Ed.-I-VI_final.pdf [as of Apr. 16, 2024].)
- Ongoing Efforts to Address the Opioid Crisis
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is a major contributor to drug overdose deaths. According to the California Department of Justice, in 2020, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 5,502 Californians died due to opioid overdose, and 3,946 died due to fentanyl overdose. The United States has experienced the overdose epidemic in three distinct but interconnected waves: an increase in deaths stemming from prescription opioid overdoses beginning in the 1990s, an increase in heroin deaths starting in 2010, and a more recent surge in deaths from other illicit opioids, primarily fentanyl and its analogues.” (See https://oag.ca.gov/fentanyl [as of Apr. 17, 2024].)
While efforts to meet the growing challenges of the opioid crisis have been ongoing, this year the Senate introduced a package of legislation to specifically target the issue through a more rehabilitative approach. Specifically, the bills in the Safer California package related to fentanyl and other controlled substances would increased access to treatment and enhanced addiction services for those in the criminal justice system. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-02-26/senate-leaders-respond-to-states-fentanyl-crisis-and-organized-retail-theft-problem-with-new-legislation [as of Apr. 17, 2024].)
- Argument in Support
According to Smart Justice California:
Collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime. However, each of these courts operates in a slightly different way with varying eligibility criteria.
SB 910 would require that collaborative drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” and require Judicial Counsel to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs by January 2026.
-- END –
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Senator Richard Roth, Chair
BILL NO: SB 910
AUTHOR: | Umberg | ||
VERSION: | February 26, 2024 | ||
HEARING DATE: | April 10, 2024 | ||
CONSULTANT: | Reyes Diaz | ||
SUBJECT: Treatment court program standards.
SUMMARY:
Updates drug treatment court program standards and makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders.
Existing law:
- Establishes the Drug Court Programs Act and permits any county, at its option, to provide such a program. [HSC §11970.5]
- Requires, if a county chooses to provide a drug court program, a county alcohol and drug program administrator and the presiding judge in the county to develop, as part of the contract for substance use disorder (SUD) services, a plan for the operation of a drug court program that includes the information necessary for the state to ensure a county’s compliance with the provisions for receipt of federal grant funds for prevention and treatment of SUDs. [HSC §11971]
- States Legislative intent that drug court programs be designed and operated in accordance with the “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). States Legislative intent that the key components of the programs include:
- Integration by drug courts of SUD treatment services with justice system case processing;
- Promotion of public safety, while protecting participants’ due process rights, by prosecution and defense counsel using a nonadversarial approach;
- Early identification of eligible participants and prompt placement in the drug court program;
- Access provided by drug courts to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services;
- Frequent alcohol and other drug testing to monitor abstinence;
- A coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to participants’ compliance;
- Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential;
- Monitoring and evaluation to measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness;
- Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations; and,
- Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations to generate local support and enhance drug court program effectiveness. [HSC §11972]
This bill:
- Updates intent language in existing law related to drug treatment court program standards by replacing the document mentioned in 2) of existing law above with the “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise, founded as the NADCP. Revises key components of programs to conform with the new standards, such as referencing evidence-based services that meet the needs of participants and working to ensure equitable access, services, and outcomes for all sociodemographic and sociocultural groups.
- Requires the Judicial Council, no later than January 1, 2026, to revise the standards of judicial administration to reflect state and nationally recognized best practices and guidelines for collaborative programs, including those described in 1) above.
- Makes other conforming, nonsubstantive changes to language referencing those with mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs).
FISCAL EFFECT:
This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s statement. According to the author, as part of the Senate’s bill package to combat the fentanyl crisis, “Working Together for a Safer California,” this bill would require that drug court programs (also known as collaborative courts) be designed and operated in accordance with “Adult Treatment Court Best Practices Standards” developed by All Rise. It would also revise key components in the program, requiring a system of incentives, sanctions, and service adjustments to achieve participant success. Drug courts provide an alternative to criminal adjudication for individuals struggling with a SUD. Participants usually attend after pleading guilty to a drug-related crime. If the participant graduates, the original charges can be reduced or dismissed. However, the standards by which they operate and the success rate at which individuals complete a drug court program also varies depending on the county or jurisdiction. Without statewide standardization, it can be difficult for participants to reap the benefits of these courts and rectify any instances of subpar implementation. All Rise is a nonprofit organization devoted to furthering the treatment court model. In the fall of 2023, All Rise published an updated version of their standards, which create a standardized and widely applicable set of guidelines for drug court implementation.
- NADCP and treatment courts. According to its website, NADCP rebranded as All Rise to capture better the work they have done and will do in the years ahead. All Rise is the training, membership, and advocacy organization for justice system innovation, addressing MH/SUDs for individuals at every intercept point. Through its four divisions (the Treatment Court Institute [founded as the National Drug Court Institute], Impaired Driving Solutions [founded as the National Center for DWI Courts], Justice for Vets, and the newly established Center for Advancing Justice), All Rise will continue to provide comprehensive treatment court training and empower emerging justice system innovations that promote recovery. The website further states that treatment courts are considered the most successful justice intervention for people with MH/SUDs. For three decades, treatment courts have proven that a combination of treatment and compassion can lead people with MH/SUDs into lives of stability, health, and recovery. This is a public health approach to justice reform in which treatment providers ensure individuals before the courts receive personalized, evidence-based treatment, and they work as a team with law enforcement, community supervision, defense, prosecution, and the judge to provide ongoing support and recovery services. This bill updates law to reflect the rebranding and updated treatment court standards.
- Double referral. This bill is double referred. Should it pass out of this Committee, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
- Support. Supporters state that collaborative courts promote accountability by combining judicial supervision with rigorously monitored rehabilitation and treatment in lieu of detention. These courts divert defendants from traditional criminal justice proceedings to alternative programs that provide social services or attempt to address underlying drivers of crime.
- Does this bill ensure uniformity? While this bill updates the referenced document for treatment program standards, it maintains legislative intent in current law and does not require a county to use the updated standards. Therefore, it is unclear how this bill will ensure uniformity among the counties that opt to use treatment courts. The author may wish to amend this bill to require counties that opt to have treatment programs to ensure the programs are designed and operated in accordance with the updated standards as follows:
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature Counties that opt to have drug treatment court programs shall ensure they are be designed and operated in accordance with the document entitled “Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components,” developed by “Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards” developed by All Rise (founded as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals and Drug Court Standards Committee (reprinted 2004). Professionals). It is the intent of the Legislature that the key components of the programs include:
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: Smart Justice California
Oppose: None received
-- END --
Bill Author
