Existing law requires that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who has a severe mental health disorder, as specified, be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals, if the prisoner meets certain requirements, including, among others, that the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from the State Department of State Hospitals have evaluated the prisoner and that a chief psychiatrist of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation certify to the Board of Parole Hearings that by reason of the prisoners severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

This bill would require that certain factors be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial risk danger of physical harm to others, including, but not limited to, a history of violent behavior and psychopathy. prior history of state hospital commitment.

Existing law allows a prisoner to request a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of proving that the prisoner meets the criteria to be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals. Existing law allows a prisoner who disagrees with the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings to file a petition in court for a hearing on whether they met the criteria and, if the court reverses the determination of the Board of Parole Hearings, existing law authorizes the court to require the parties to return to court to ensure that the entities involved in the release of the prisoner have coordinated an exit plan for the prisoner.

This bill would require that an exit plan include the submission of an application for Medi-Cal benefits, a determination of whether assisted outpatient treatment or a petition under the CARE Act is appropriate, or a determination of whether the prisoner appears to be gravely disabled, as defined. benefits and a recommendation, as appropriate, to the supervising countys behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional, as specified, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the prisoner for a mental health disorder for certain resources and programs, including substance use disorder treatment, assisted outpatient treatment, and early psychosis intervention services.

Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), an initiative measure enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, funds a system of county mental health plans for the provision of mental health services, as specified. The MHSA establishes the Mental Health Services Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services (department), to fund specified county mental health programs. Existing law, the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), a legislative act amending the MHSA that was approved by the voters as Proposition 1 at the March 5, 2024, statewide primary election, recast the MHSA by, among other things, renaming the fund to the Behavioral Health Services Fund and reallocating how moneys from that fund may be spent. The BHSA requires each county to establish and administer a full-service partnership program that includes, among other things, outpatient behavioral health services, as specified, and housing interventions.

Existing law establishes criteria for an individual with a serious mental illness to be presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership, including, among other things, the person is transitioning to the community after 6 months or more in the state prison or county jail. The bill would specify that a county is not required to enroll an individual who meets that presumptive eligibility criteria if doing so would exceed full-service partnership funding.

This bill would add to the criteria for presumptively eligibility for a full-service partnership an individual transitioning to the community after 6 months or more in a state hospital.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law, the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Act, supports the stated goals of identifying and managing the risk and needs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries, transitioning and transforming the Medi-Cal program to a more consistent and seamless system, and improving quality outcomes. Existing law makes a qualifying inmate of a public institution eligible, commencing no sooner than January 1, 2023, to receive targeted Medi-Cal services, limited to those services approved in the CalAIM Terms and Conditions for 90 days, as specified.

This bill would also make a qualifying inmate of a state hospital eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services, as described.

By expanding the population receiving benefits under the BHSA and to the extent that the bill would create new duties for counties relating to Medi-Cal eligibility determinations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires certain persons released from state prison custody to be subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the person resides following their release from state prison. Existing law requires that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who has a severe mental health disorder, as specified, be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals, if the prisoner meets certain requirements. requirements, including, among others, that the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from the State Department of State Hospitals have evaluated the prisoner and that a chief psychiatrist of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation certify to the Board of Parole Hearings that by reason of the prisoners severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

Existing law requires certain persons released from state prison custody to be subject to parole supervision by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and subject to the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which the person resides following their release from state prison. Existing law requires that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who has a severe mental health disorder, as specified, be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals, if the prisoner meets certain requirements.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that provision.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1825 (Krell) - Health care: state hospitals

Bill Summary:

AB 1825 would revise the factors that must be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others for purposes of commitment to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMD).

Fiscal Impact:

Due to the broad nature of the proposed factors that would cause an individual to be certified as an OMD, this bill would increase OMD commitments and decrease the number of OMDs decertified, increasing DSH’s OMD patient population overall.

The average cost of treatment for a patient at DSH is $1,121 per day ($409,165 a year). Currently, OMD patients have an average length of stay of 259 days, which totals an average cost of $290,000 per patient. DSH indicates it is difficult to determine to what extent this bill will increase DSH’s OMD patient population and related costs with specificity, but DSH estimates an increase in new OMD commitments to DSH up to five percent and a reduction of OMD decertifications of up to ten percent. This would result in costs of up to tens of millions of dollars annually to activate additional beds to treat the increased OMD population. (General Fund)

Minor, absorbable costs to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR) to coordinate the most involved exit planning within existing administrative processes. (General Fund)

Estimated $200,000 to $900,000 annually to county behavioral health programs to coordinate with CDCR on an offender’s exit plan, making clinical determinations and providing subsequent treatment. Costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Potential costs to the Department of Health Care Services to extend the Justice Involved Reentry Initiative, contingent upon application and receipt of federal approval. (federal funds, General Fund)

Background:

Justice involved individuals, people who are now, or have spent time in jails, youth correctional facilities, or prison, are at higher risk for injury or death than the general public. They face disproportionate risks of violence, overdose and suicide. In January 2023, California became the first state approved to offer a targeted set of Medicaid services to youth and eligible adults in state prisons, county jails and youth correctional facilities for up to 90 days prior to release. The Justice-Involved Reentry Initiative allows eligible Californians who are incarcerated to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive a targeted set of services in the 90 days before their release. This initiative aims to ensure continuity of health care coverage and services between the time they are incarcerated and when they are released. Upon release, individuals can be connected to community-based mental health and substance use treatment programs through county behavioral health plans. The costs of the services are split equally between federal Medicaid and MediCal.

Proposed Law:

Among other things, this bill would specify that a qualifying inmate of a state hospital shall be eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services for 90 days, or longer, as specified. The DHCS would submit a request for eligibility with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Staff Comments:

DSH notes that it has limited available capacity to activate beds for this purpose. Should the OMD patient population grow beyond available beds, there would be additional unknown costs. DSH would need to contract for additional bed capacity outside of DSH hospitals, either jail-based or community-based, for which it could treat other populations committed to DSH to make space for the increased OMD population. DSH would monitor the impact of this bill and request resources as needed through its Enrollment, Caseload, and Population Estimates. 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, Chair

BILL NO: AB 1825

SUBJECT: Health care: state hospitals

SUMMARY:

Adds the behavioral health department of the county of supervision as an entity the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is required to notify and work with when releasing a prisoner to community supervision. Requires CDCR, the county of supervision, and the county’s behavioral health department to coordinate an exit plan for each individual being released, including targeted Medi-Cal services, prior to the release date.

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. [WIC §14001.1]
2. Requires each county to establish and administer a full-service partnership (FSP) program that includes services such as mental health, supportive, and substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services; outpatient behavioral health; ongoing engagement; and, housing interventions. [WIC §5887(a)]
3. Deems an individual with a serious mental illness as presumptively eligible for an FSP if they meet criteria, one of which is that they are transitioning to the community after six months or more in a secured treatment or residential setting, including, but not limited to, a mental health rehabilitation center, institution for mental disease, or secured skilled nursing facility. [WIC §5887(d)(2)(A)(ii)]
4. Requires a prisoner, as a condition of parole, to be provided necessary treatment by the California Department of State Hospitals (DSH) if specific criteria are met, such as that the prisoner has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment; the condition was one of the causes of, or an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime resulting in imprisonment; and, as a result of the severe mental disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. [PEN §2962]
5. Requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), upon a determination that an individual is eligible for release to community supervision, to notify the probation department of the county of supervision of the pending release within five working days of the court order and work with the county of supervision to coordinate the orderly and safe release of the prisoner. [PEN §2966]
6. Requires a qualifying inmate of a public institution to be eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services for 90 days, or the number of days approved in the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Terms and Conditions for an eligible population of qualifying inmates if different than 90 days, prior to the date they are released from a public institution, if otherwise eligible for those services. [WIC §14184.800]

This bill:

1. Adds the behavioral health department of the county of supervision as an entity CDCR is required to notify pending the release of an eligible individual to community supervision, and as an entity CDCR is required to work with to coordinate the orderly and safe release of a prisoner pursuant to Existing Law 5) above.
2. Requires CDCR, the county of supervision, and the county’s behavioral health department to work at coordinating an exit plan, as part of the prisoner’s orderly and safe release, that includes, but is not limited to:
   1. The submission of a Medi-Cal application; and,
   2. A recommendation to the supervising county’s behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the individual for a mental health disorder for any of the following: suicide prevention; SUD treatment; Medi-Cal enhanced care management; an FSP; Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT); the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act; a forensic assertive community treatment program; evaluating if the offender meets the definition of gravely disabled for involuntary detention and determining if the supervising county should pursue a court-ordered mental health evaluation using the existing legal process under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act; and, early psychosis intervention services.
3. Adds an individual with a serious mental illness transitioning to the community after six months or more in a State Hospital to the presumptive eligibility criteria for an FSP described in Existing Law 3) above.
4. Adds a qualifying inmate of a State Hospital as a person eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services for 90 days under CalAIM.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

The County Behavioral Health Directors Association estimates costs to county behavioral health programs of $209,000 to $889,000 statewide to coordinate with CDCR on an offender's exit plan, making clinical determinations, and providing subsequent treatment. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates (General Fund);

DSH states this bill will increase DSH’s Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMHD) patient population by increasing OMHD commitments and decreasing OMHD decertifications. The average cost of treatment for a patient at DSH is $1,121 per day ($409,165/year). The average length of stay for OMHD patients is 259 days, for an average cost of $290K per patient. Although it is difficult to determine the extent to which this bill will increase DSH’s OMHD patient population and related costs, DSH estimates an increase in new OMHD commitments to DSH up to 5% and a reduction of OMHD decertifications up to 10% of its population of 1,132 OMHDs (including those on conditional release), which would result in costs of up to tens of millions of dollars annually to activate additional beds to treat the increased OMHD population (General Fund). DSH notes that it has limited available capacity to activate beds for this purpose;

Costs to CDCR of an unknown amount, potentially absorbable or in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually; and,

Costs to DHCS of an unknown but likely significant amount, to the extent providing coverage for an inmate of DSH is allowable.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

PRIOR VOTES:

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, the OMHD program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities. But reforms on both the front end and the back end will better protect public safety. Specifically, the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. This bill takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities.
2. CalAIM. According to DHCS, CalAIM puts people’s needs at the center of care by providing coordinated support to meet each Medi-Cal beneficiary’s physical, developmental, behavioral, and dental health needs as well as long-term services and health-related social supports. CalAIM shifts Medi-Cal to a population health approach, prioritizing prevention, addressing social drivers of health, and transforming services for communities who historically have been under-resourced and faced structural racism in the health care system. CalAIM includes specific initiatives on equity designed to provide equal access to health and well-being, such as targeted services for individuals transitioning from incarceration to community re-entry, from homelessness to housing, and from institutional to home-based care, and reduces variation across counties and plans, while recognizing the importance of local innovation and supports, community activation, and engagement.

Through the Justice-Involved Initiative, DHCS states California is taking significant steps to improve poor health outcomes in this population as they prepare to re-enter their community. In 2023, California became the first state in the nation approved to offer a targeted set of Medicaid services to youth and adults in state prisons, county jails, and youth correctional facilities (State Hospitals are not included) for up to 90 days prior to release. Through a federal Medicaid 1115 demonstration waiver approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, DHCS partners with state agencies, counties, and community-based organizations to establish a coordinated community reentry process that assists people leaving incarceration connect to the physical and mental health services they need prior to release. Pre-release Medi-Cal services include reentry care management services; physical and behavioral health clinical consultation services provided through telehealth or in person, as needed, to diagnose health conditions, provide treatment as appropriate, and support pre-release care managers’ development of a post-release treatment plan and discharge planning; laboratory and radiology services; medications and medication administration; medication assisted therapy for all Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, including coverage for counseling; and, services provided by community health workers with lived experience. In addition to these pre-release services, qualifying members can receive covered outpatient prescribed medications and over-the-counter drugs and durable medical equipment upon release, consistent with approved state plan coverage authority and policy.

1. FSPs. According to DHCS, FSPs provide comprehensive and intensive care for people at any age with the most complex needs under a model known as “whatever it takes.” Since the revamping and renaming of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA), under SB 326 (Eggman, Chapter 790, Statutes of 2023), counties must, except for in specified cases, use 35% of BHSA funds for FSPs. Counties have the flexibility to move 7% of funds to/from FSPs into another category (Housing Interventions or Behavioral Health Services Supports) for a maximum total shift of 14%. Since the passage of SB 326, FSP teams must be capable of supporting individuals living with co-occurring mental health and substance use conditions.
2. OMHD. According to CDCR, the OMHD commitment was created to provide a mechanism to detain and treat persons with a severe mental health disorder who reach the end of a determinate prison term and are dangerous to others as a result of a severe mental health disorder. The law became effective on July 1, 1986. OMHD is a two-phase commitment. During the first phase, the CDCR Chief Psychiatrist certifies the person as OMHD and the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) imposes a parole condition that the person serve their parole at a State Hospital. The second phase continues mental health treatment after the supervised person is discharged from parole, which involves a civil commitment for involuntary treatment. Current law mandates BPH to order a person who meets the OMHD criteria to receive mental health treatment provided by DSH by imposing a special condition of parole. Mental health treatment is mandated to be inpatient until DSH certifies that the supervised person can be safely and effectively treated in the community on an outpatient basis. A supervised person with a severe mental health disorder has the right to a series of due process hearings. Thus, BPH conducts OMHD certification and placement and annual review hearings, which are conducted by BPH’s Deputy Commissioners. Certification and annual review hearings are held to determine whether the supervised person meets the OMHD commitment criteria. Placement hearings address whether the supervised person should receive inpatient treatment provided by DSH or whether the supervised person can be safely and effectively treated in the community on an outpatient basis.
3. Double referral. This bill was heard in the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 16, 2026, and passed with a 6-0 vote.
4. Related legislation. AB 1782 (DeMaio) would have reduced the number of factors the chief psychiatrist of CDCR must use to certify to BPH the involuntary commitment of an OMHD. AB 1782 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 1897 (Haney) would permit an incarcerated person who disagrees with a BPH determination that they qualify as an OMHD to file a petition for a hearing on the matter in the superior court of the county of commitment to state prison, rather than in the county in which the person is incarcerated or being treated. AB 1897 is set for hearing on June 30, 2026, in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

1. Prior legislation. AB 348 (Krell, Chapter 688, Statutes of 2025) establishes specific criteria that would make a person with a serious mental illness presumptively eligible for an FSP, including the person is transitioning to the community after six months or more in a state prison or county jail, has been detained five or more times as a danger to themselves or others, or gravely disabled, over the last five years, or is currently experiencing unsheltered homelessness. AB 348 specifies that a county is not required to enroll an individual if doing so would conflict with contractual Medi-Cal obligations or court orders, or would exceed county FSP capacity or funding.

SB 326 (Eggman, Chapter 790, Statutes of 2023) recasts the MHSA as the BHSA and modifies state and local spending requirements, including the establishment of the FSP program in statute. SB 326 also creates additional oversight and reporting requirements for counties.

1. Support. The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP), as sponsor, states that BPH currently can require treatment for individuals whose severe mental disorder contributed to the commission of a violent offense and who, as a result of that disorder, may represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. However, the absence of clear standards for evaluating dangerousness and the lack of structured exit planning can result in abrupt termination of OMHD classification and direct discharge to the community without adequate clinical coordination or safeguards. A violence risk assessment is most effective when it incorporates well-established factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward others or oneself, patterns of violent behavior, prior violent offenses, treatment compliance and response, and prior State Hospital commitments. CSAP says establishing these factors in statute will help ensure that risk evaluations are thorough, consistent, and informed by evidence-based practices, and that this bill recognizes the importance of coordinated reentry planning by requiring collaboration with county behavioral health departments and consideration of programs, such as AOT, CARE Court, or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment when individuals are released to the community. CSAP further argues this bill strengthens continuity of care by requiring structured exit plans and by allowing individuals in State Hospitals to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive Medi-Cal services during the 90 days prior to release, aligning them with policies already available to people leaving prisons and jails. These provisions support effective coordination and timely access to psychiatric care, medication, and community-based services—interventions that are essential for stabilizing serious mental illness and reducing the likelihood of relapse or re-offense. Other supporters largely echo CSAP’s sentiments.
2. Opposition. The California Behavioral Health Planning Council (CBHPC) states that they acknowledge and support the bill’s intent to promote a recovery-oriented approach for individuals with behavioral health challenges as they transition from incarceration back into communities. CBHPC recognizes the importance of strengthening pathways that help these individuals access behavioral health services that are essential to their stability, recovery, and long-term well-being. CBHPC further argues that although this bill aims to strengthen the continuity of care for people exiting carceral settings, the bill raises significant concerns regarding patient choice and voluntary treatment. It places increased emphasis on the use of behavioral health interventions, such as AOT, the CARE Act, and grave disability proceedings without clear safeguards to ensure that these tools remain limited and are recommended only when clinically necessary and appropriate. Any use or recommendation of such interventions should be grounded in individualized clinical assessments, including appropriate due-process protections, and occur only after less restrictive alternatives have been exhausted or clearly determined to be ineffective in meeting the individual’s needs. CBHPC believes that California should prioritize voluntary pathways to treatment and strengthen access to community based behavioral health supports that promote recovery, preserve individual rights, and delivered in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: California State Association of Psychiatrists (sponsor)

California Behavioral Health Association
California District Attorneys Association
California Medical Association
California Police Chiefs Association

Oppose: California Behavioral Health Planning Council

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1825 Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Subject: Health care: state hospitals

HISTORY

Source: California State Association of Psychiatrists

Prior Legislation: AB 348 (Krell), Ch. 688, Stats. of 2025

AB 2465 (Haney), Ch. 963, Stats. of 2024

SB 591 (Galgiani), Ch. 649, Stats. 2019

SB 1295 (Nielsen), Ch. 430, Stats. of 2016

Support: California Behavioral Health Association; California District Attorneys Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 74 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to specify the factors that must be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others for purposes of commitment as an offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD).

Existing law provides that the Legislature finds that there are incarcerated individuals who have a treatable, severe mental health disorder that was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of the crime for which they were incarcerated. Provides that the Legislature finds that if the severe mental health disorders of those incarcerated individuals are not in remission or cannot be kept in remission at the time of their parole or upon termination of parole, there is a danger to society, and the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public. Provides that the Legislature finds that in order to protect the public from those persons, it is necessary to provide mental health treatment until the severe mental health disorder that was one of the causes of or was an aggravating factor in the person’s prior criminal behavior is in remission and can be kept in remission. (Pen. Code, § 2960, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that the Legislature further finds and declares the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) should evaluate each incarcerated individual for severe mental health disorders during the first year of the person’s sentence, and that incarcerated individuals with severe mental health disorders should be provided with an appropriate level of mental health treatment while in prison and when returned to the community. (Pen. Code, § 2960, subd. (b).)

Existing law allows the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), upon a showing of good cause, to order an incarcerated person to remain in custody for up to 45 days past the person’s scheduled release date for a full OMHD evaluation. Defines good cause to mean circumstances where there is a recalculation of credits or a restoration of denied or lost credits, a resentencing by a court, the receipt of the incarcerated individual into custody, or equivalent exigent circumstances which result in there being less than 45 days prior to the person’s scheduled release date for the OMHD evaluation. (Pen. Code, § 2963.)

Existing law requires incarcerated persons who meet the following criteria to be deemed an OMHD and be treated by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) as a condition of parole:

• The incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment.
• The severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime for which the person was sentenced to prison.
• The incarcerated person has been in treatment for the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the person’s parole or release.
• The person’s severe mental health disorder indicates that the person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)-(d).)

Existing law defines “severe mental health disorder” as an illness, disease, or condition that substantially impairs the person’s thought, perception of reality, emotional process, or judgment; or that grossly impairs behavior; or that demonstrates evidence of an acute brain syndrome for which prompt remission, in the absence of treatment, is unlikely. Specifies that “severe mental health disorder” does not include a personality or adjustment disorder, epilepsy, intellectual disability or other developmental disabilities, or addiction to or abuse of intoxicating substances. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(2).)

Existing law defines “remission” as a finding that the overt signs and symptoms of the severe mental health disorder are controlled either by psychotropic medication or psychosocial support. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(3).)

Existing law provides that a person “cannot be kept in remission without treatment” if during the year prior to the question being before the BPH or a trial court, the person has been in remission and has been physically violent, except in self-defense, or has made a serious threat of substantial physical harm upon the person of another so as to cause the target of the threat to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family, or the person has intentionally caused property damage, or has not voluntarily followed the treatment plan. Provides that in determining if a person has voluntarily followed the treatment plan, the standard is whether the person has acted as a reasonable person would in following the treatment plan. (Ibid.)

Existing law requires the crime for which the person was sentenced to prison to meet the following criteria:

• The defendant received a determinate sentence.
• The crime is one of the following: voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; kidnapping; a robbery wherein it was charged and proved that the defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of that robbery; carjacking if the defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the carjacking; rape; sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age; continuous sexual abuse; sexual penetration by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; arson; a felony in which the defendant used a firearm; igniting an explosive or destructive device; attempted murder; any crime not enumerated in which the person used force or violence, or caused serious bodily injury; or a crime in which the perpetrator expressly or impliedly threatened another with the use of force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe and expect that the force or violence would be used. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e).)

Existing law provides that “substantial danger of physical harm” does not require proof of a recent overt act. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (g).)

Existing law allows the incarcerated person to request a hearing before BPH for the purpose of proving that the person meets the OMHD criteria. Provides that the burden of proof is on the person or agency who certified the person as an OMHD. Provides that the incarcerated person has the right to a jury trial and the right to be represented by an attorney. Provides that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the trial is by jury, the jury verdict must be unanimous. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subds. (a), (b).)

Existing law requires CDCR, if the court or jury finds that the person does not meet the OMHD criteria and the person is eligible for release, to notify the probation department of the county of supervision of the pending release within five working days of the court order and work with the county of supervision to coordinate the orderly and safe release of the incarcerated person. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (b).)

This bill requires the following factors to be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others for purposes of commitment as an OMHD:

• A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location.
• A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward themselves.
• A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves or another individual, group, or location.
• A history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses.
• Treatment compliance history and response to treatment.
• Prior history of forensic state hospital commitment, as specified.

This bill requires CDCR, if the person is determined not to be an OMHD and eligible for release, to notify the behavioral health department of the county of supervision of the person’s pending release within five working days of the court order and work with the county of supervision’s behavioral health department to coordinate an exit plan for the release of the incarcerated person.

This bill requires the exit plan include, but is not limited to, both of the following:

• The submission of a Medi-Cal application.
• A recommendation to the supervising county’s behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the individual for a mental health disorder for any of the following, as appropriate:
  • Suicide prevention.
  • Substance use disorder treatment.
  • Medi-Cal enhanced care management.
  • Full-service partnership, as specified.
  • Assisted outpatient treatment.
  • The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act.
  • Forensic assertive community treatment program.
  • Whether the offender meets the definition of gravely disabled, as defined, and if the supervising county should pursue a court-ordered mental health evaluation.
  • Early psychosis intervention services.

This bill provides that an individual with a serious mental illness is presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership if the person is transitioning to the community after six months or more in a state hospital.

COMMENTS

1. Need For This Bill

According to the author:

The Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMHD) program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities. But reforms on both the front-end and the back-end will better protect public safety. Specifically, the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. AB 1825 takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities.

1. OMHD Commitment

An OMHD commitment, formerly known as a mentally disordered offender commitment, is a post-prison civil commitment to further detain a person with a severe mental health disorder. The OMHD Act is designed to confine a mentally ill individual who is about to be released on parole when it is deemed that that the person’s mental illness not only contributed to the commission of a violent crime but also continues to make them dangerous to others. Rather than release the person to the community, CDCR paroles the incarcerated person to the supervision of the state hospital, and the individual remains under hospital supervision throughout the parole period.

Penal Code section 2962 lists the criteria that must be proven for an initial OMHD certification: the incarcerated person has a severe mental disorder; the severe mental disorder was one of the causes or an aggravating factor in the commission of the offense; the disorder is not in remission or capable of being kept in remission without treatment; the incarcerated person was treated for the disorder for at least 90 days in the year before their release; and by reason of the severe mental disorder, the person poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subds. (a)-(d).)

The initial determination that the incarcerated person meets the OMHD criteria is made administratively. The person in charge of treating the incarcerated person and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from DSH evaluate the incarcerated person. If it appears that the incarcerated person meets the OMHD criteria, the chief psychiatrist then will certify so to BPH.

The incarcerated person may request a hearing before BPH to require proof that they qualify as an OMHD. If BPH determines that the person meets the criteria of an OMHD, the person may file a petition in the superior court of the county in which they are incarcerated or are being treated for a hearing on whether they, as of the date of the board hearing, meet the criteria. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (a).) The person is entitled to a jury trial, which can be waived. The jury must unanimously agree that the allegations of the petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court or jury reverses the BPH determination, the court must stay the execution of the decision for up to 30 days to allow for an orderly release of the person. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (b).) If the court or jury finds that the person does not meet the OMHD criteria and the person is eligible for release, CDCR must notify the probation department of the county of supervision of the pending release within five working days of the court order and work with the county of supervision to coordinate the release of the incarcerated person. (Ibid.)

Under current law, an OMHD must receive inpatient treatment unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the person can be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis. (Pen. Code, § 2964.) If the person’s severe mental disorder is put into remission during the parole period and can be kept in remission, DSH must discontinue treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2968.) However, if prior to the termination of parole, the person’s severe mental disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, the medical director of the state hospital that is treating the person must notify the district attorney who can file a petition in the superior court for continued involuntary treatment for one year.. (Pen. Code, § 2970.)

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill has two primary components. First, it specifies factors that must be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others for purposes of commitment as an OMHD. Second, the bill requires CDCR to notify the behavioral health department of the county of supervision of a person’s pending release and work with the county of supervision’s behavioral health department to coordinate an exit plan for the release of the incarcerated person if the person is determined not to be an OMHD and eligible for release.

In making the determination about whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others for purposes of an OMHD commitment, the bill requires the evaluator to consider if any of the following types of incidents have occurred or whether the person has any of the following historical factors:

• A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location.
• A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward themselves.
• A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves or another individual, group, or location.
• A history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses.
• Treatment compliance history and response to treatment.
• Prior history of forensic state hospital commitment, as specified.

As part of the requirement that CDCR coordinate with the county of supervision on the person’s exit plan, the bill requires the exit plan to include the submission of a Medi-Cal application and a recommendation to the supervising county’s behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional who is, or has been, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the individual for a mental health disorder for specified treatments, case management, evaluations, or referrals, including substance use disorder treatment, full-service partnership, assisted outpatient treatment, evaluation as an offender who meets the definition of gravely disabled, or early psychosis intervention services, among others.

1. Argument in Support

The California State Association of Psychiatrists, the bill’s sponsor, writes:

Current law allows the Board of Parole Hearings to require treatment for individuals whose severe mental disorder contributed to the commission of a violent offense and who, as a result of that disorder, may represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. However, the absence of clear standards for evaluating dangerousness and the lack of structured exit planning can result in abrupt termination of OMHD classification and direct discharge to the community without adequate clinical coordination or safeguards.

A violence risk assessment is most effective when it incorporates well-established factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward others or oneself, patterns of violent behavior, prior violent offenses, treatment compliance and response, and prior state hospital commitments. Establishing these factors in statute will help ensure that risk evaluations are thorough, consistent, and informed by evidence-based practices. AB 1825 recognizes the importance of coordinated reentry planning by requiring collaboration with county behavioral health departments and consideration of programs such as Assisted Outpatient Treatment, CARE Court, or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment when individuals are released to the community.

Finally, this legislation strengthens continuity of care by requiring structured exit plans and by allowing individuals in state hospitals to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive Medi-Cal services during the 90 days prior to release, aligning them with policies already available to people leaving prisons and jails. These provisions support effective coordination and timely access to psychiatric care, medication, and community-based services—interventions that are essential for stabilizing serious mental illness and reducing the likelihood of relapse or re-offense.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1825

Author:(Krell)

As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Specifies factors that a chief psychiatrist of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall consider when determining whether an incarcerated person with a severe mental health disorder poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

Major Provisions

1. Provides the factors that shall be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others, include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
   1. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location.
   2. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward themselves.
   3. A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves or another individual, group or location.
   4. A history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses.
   5. Treatment compliance history and response to treatment.
   6. Prior history of forensic state hospital commitment, as specified.
2. Requires an exit plan for an incarcerated person whose offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD) determination has been reversed to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
   1. The submission of a Medi-Cal application.
   2. A recommendation to the supervising county's behavioral health department by a licensed behavioral health professional who is, or has been within the previous 30 days, supervising the treatment of, or treating, the individual for a mental health disorder for any of the following, as appropriate:
      1. Suicide prevention.
      2. Substance use disorder treatment.
      3. Medi-Cal enhanced care management.
      4. Full-service partnership, as specified.
      5. Assisted outpatient treatment, as specified.
      6. The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, as specified.
      7. Forensic assertive community treatment program.
      8. Whether the offender meets the definition of gravely disabled, as specified, and if the supervising county should pursue a court-ordered mental health evaluation using the existing legal process, as specified.
      9. Early psychosis intervention services.
3. Requires CDCR, for an incarcerated person whose OMHD determination has been reversed, to additionally notify the behavior health department of the county of supervision of the person's pending release within five working days of the court order of release, and to additionally work with the county of supervision's behavioral health department to coordination the offender's exit plan.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"The Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMHD) program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities. But reforms on both the front-end and the back-end will better protect public safety. Specifically, the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. AB 1825 takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities."

Arguments in Support

According to the California State Association of Psychiatrists, "Current law allows the Board of Parole Hearings to require treatment for individuals whose severe mental disorder contributed to the commission of a violent offense and who, as a result of that disorder, may represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. However, the absence of clear standards for evaluating dangerousness and the lack of structured exit planning can result in abrupt termination of OMHD classification and direct discharge to the community without adequate clinical coordination or safeguards."

"A violence risk assessment is most effective when it incorporates well-established factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward others or oneself, patterns of violent behavior, prior violent offenses, treatment compliance and response, and prior state hospital commitments. Establishing these factors in statute will help ensure that risk evaluations are thorough, consistent, and informed by evidence-based practices. AB 1825 recognizes the importance of coordinated reentry planning by requiring collaboration with county behavioral health departments and consideration of programs such as Assisted Outpatient Treatment, CARE Court, or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment when individuals are released to the community."

"Finally, this legislation strengthens continuity of care by requiring structured exit plans and by allowing individuals in state hospitals to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive Medi-Cal services during the 90 days prior to release, aligning them with policies already available to people leaving prisons and jails. These provisions support effective coordination and timely access to psychiatric care, medication, and community-based services—interventions that are essential for stabilizing serious mental illness and reducing the likelihood of relapse or re-offense."

Arguments in Opposition

None submitted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) estimates costs to county behavioral health programs of $209,000 to $889,000 statewide to coordinate with CDCR on an offender's exit plan, making clinical determinations, and providing subsequent treatment. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates (General Fund).
2. DSH states this bill will increase DSH's OMHD patient population by increasing OMHD commitments and decreasing OMHD decertifications. The average cost of treatment for a patient at DSH is $1,121 per day ($409,165/year). The average length of stay for OMHD patients is 259 days, for an average cost of $290K per patient. Although it is difficult to determine the extent to which this bill will increase DSH's OMHD patient population and related costs, DSH estimates an increase in new OMHD commitments to DSH up to 5% and a reduction of OMHD decertifications up to 10% of its population of 1,132 OMHDs (including those on conditional release), which would result in costs of up to tens of millions of dollars annually to activate additional beds to treat the increased OMHD population (General Fund). DSH notes that it has limited available capacity to activate beds for this purpose.
3. Costs to CDCR of an unknown amount, potentially absorbable or in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
4. Costs to DHCS of an unknown but likely significant amount, to the extent providing coverage for an inmate of DSH is allowable.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0

YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Carrillo, Mark González, Johnson, Patel, Patterson, Rogers, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 16, 2026

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002812

Date of Hearing: May 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1825

Author:(Krell) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill makes changes to the Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMHD) Program, including adding criteria for determining whether an offender poses a substantial risk of physical harm to others. For an offender who is being released, this bill requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to create an exit plan that includes submission of an application for Medi-Cal benefits, as appropriate, and referral for certain county resources and programs.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CDCR consider specified factors when determining whether an incarcerated person with SMI poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others, including recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward others or themself, a pattern of acts or threats of violence within the past 12 months, history of violent behavior, treatment compliance history and response to treatment; and history of state hospital commitment.
2. Specifies that, if a court reverses a person’s OMHD determination, CDCR must notify the behavioral health department of the county of supervision pending release to coordinate an exit plan. Requires the exit plan to include (a) the submission of an application for Medi-Cal benefits and (b) a recommendation, as appropriate, by the behavioral health professional who has been treating the prisoner, or the supervisor of the professional, to the supervising county’s behavioral health department for specified resources and programs.
3. Makes an individual transitioning to the community after six months or more in a state hospital presumptively eligible for a full-service partnership (FSP).
4. Expands the eligibility for receiving targeted Medi-Cal services, as provided by the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Act, to include a qualifying inmate of a state hospital.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association (CBHDA) estimates costs to county behavioral health programs of $209,000 to $889,000 statewide to coordinate with CDCR on an offender’s exit plan, making clinical determinations, and providing subsequent treatment. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates (General Fund).
2. DSH states this bill will increase DSH’s OMHD patient population by increasing OMHD commitments and decreasing OMHD decertifications. The average cost of treatment for a patient at DSH is $1,121 per day ($409,165/year). The average length of stay for OMHD patients is 259 days, for an average cost of $290K per patient. Although it is difficult to determine the extent to which this bill will increase DSH’s OMHD patient population and related costs, DSH estimates an increase in new OMHD commitments to DSH up to 5% and a reduction of OMHD decertifications up to 10% of its population of 1,132 OMHDs (including those on conditional release), which would result in costs of up to tens of millions of dollars annually to activate additional beds to treat the increased OMHD population (General Fund). DSH notes that it has limited available capacity to activate beds for this purpose.
    
3. Costs to CDCR of an unknown amount, potentially absorbable or in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
4. Costs to DHCS of an unknown but likely significant amount, to the extent providing coverage for an inmate of DSH is allowable.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the California State Association of Psychiatrists. According to the author:

The [OMHD] program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities. But reforms on both the front-end and the back-end will better protect public safety. Specifically, the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. [This bill] takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities.

1. Background. The OMHD program is designed to confine an incarcerated person who is about to be released on parole if they suffer from a severe mental health disorder that contributed to the commission of their crime. Under existing law, CDCR may parole an incarcerated person who meets specified criteria to the supervision of DSH for treatment, rather than releasing them to the community. The person remains under DSH supervision throughout the parole period. Treatment can continue for one year upon termination of parole and may be extended for an additional year after expiration of the original, or previous, one-year commitment. Commitment as an OMHD requires that the incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment.
2. Related Legislation. AB 1782 (DeMaio) reduces the number of factors to which the chief psychiatrist of CDCR must certify prior to the involuntary commitment of an OMHD. AB 1782 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 1897 (Haney) requires the chief psychiatrist of CDCR or DSH to use a specified violence risk assessment tool as part of the evaluation conducted before certifying an incarcerated person to the Board of Parole Hearings as an OMHD, and changes the venue for a petition challenging an OMHD determination from the superior court of the county where the person is incarcerated or being treated to the superior court of the county of commitment to state prison. AB 1897 is pending in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 14, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1825

Author:(Krell) – As Amended Ver:March 9, 2026

SUBJECT: Health care: state hospitals.

SUMMARY: Requires that various factors be considered when determining whether an incarcerated person is an offender with a mental health disorder (OHMD) subject to treatment by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) as a condition of parole, and requires an exit plan for an individual determined by the court to not pose a substantial risk of physical harm to others to include specific services. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that the following factors be considered when determining if an incarcerated person poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others:
   1. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location;
   2. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward themselves;
   3. A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves or another individual, group, or location;
   4. A history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses;
   5. Treatment compliance history and response to treatment; and,
   6. Prior history of state hospital commitment.
2. Specifies that, when a court reverses a determination that an incarcerated person is an OHMD, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is required to notify the behavioral health department, in addition to the probation department as required by existing law, of the county of supervision pending release to help facilitate an exit plan.
3. Requires that an exit plan, if an incarcerated person is found not to be an OHMD by court order, include the following:
   1. A submission of a Medi-Cal application;
   2. A determination of whether the offender is appropriate for Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), a petition under the Community Assistance Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Act, or a forensic assertive community treatment (ACT) program; and,
   3. A determination of whether the offender appears to be gravely disabled to the court, specifying that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) may apply to the county of last legal residence for a court-ordered mental health evaluation.
4. Expands presumptive eligibility for a full-service partnership (FSP) to individuals transitioning to a community after six months or more in a state hospital.
5. Expands the eligibility for receiving targeted Medi-Cal services, as provided by the California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) Act, to include a qualifying inmate of a state hospital.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who meets the following criteria shall be provided necessary treatment by DSH:
   1. The prisoner has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment;
   2. The severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison;
   3. The prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner’s parole or release; and,
   4. Prior to release on parole, the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from DSH have evaluated the prisoner at a facility of the CDCR, and a chief psychiatrist of CDCR has certified to BPH the following:
      1. The incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder;
      2. The disorder is not in remission and cannot be kept in remission without treatment;
      3. The severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the prisoner’s criminal behavior;
      4. The prisoner has been in treatment of the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner’s parole release day; and,
      5. By reason of the prisoner’s severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. [Penal Code (PEN) § 2962 (a)-(d)]
2. Provides that, if the professionals doing the evaluation do not concur that the prisoner has a severe mental health disorder, that the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, or that the severe mental health disorder was a cause of, or aggravated, the prisoner’s criminal behavior, and a chief psychiatrist has certified the prisoner to the BPH pursuant to this paragraph, BPH shall order a further examination by two independent professionals, as provided. [PEN § 2962 (d)(2)]
3. Provides that, if at least one of the independent professionals who evaluate the prisoner concurs with the chief psychiatrist’s certification of the issues, the person may be involuntarily committed. [PEN § 2962 (d)(3)]
4. States that the crimes which qualify an individual for involuntary commitment if the individual’s severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in its commission, meets both of the following criteria:
   1. The defendant received a determinate sentence for the crime; and,
   2. The crime of, among others, voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; kidnapping, a specified; robbery with a deadly or dangerous weapon, as specified; carjacking with a deadly or dangerous weapon, as specified; rape and other sex crimes, as specified; arson, as specified; a felony in which the defendant used a firearm, as specified; attempted murder; a crime in which the prisoner used force or violence, or caused serious bodily injury, as specified; and a crime in which the perpetrator expressly or impliedly threatened another with the use of force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe and expect that the force or violence would be used. [PEN § 2962 (e)(1)(2)]
5. Provides that the existence or nature of the crime for which the person has been convicted may be shown with documentary evidence. Permits the details underlying the commission of the offense that led to the conviction, including the use of force or violence, causing serious bodily injury, or the threat to use force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm, be shown by documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, preliminary hearing transcripts, trial transcripts, probation and sentencing reports, and evaluations by DSH. [PEN § 2962 (f)]
6. Provides that “substantial danger of physical harm” does not require proof of a recent overt act. [PEN § 2962 (g)]
7. Defines “severe mental health disorder” to mean an illness, disease, or condition that substantially impairs the person’s thought, perception of reality, emotional process, or judgment; or that grossly impairs behavior; or that demonstrates evidence of an acute brain syndrome for which prompt remission, in the absence of treatment, is unlikely. [PEN § 2962 (a)(2)]
8. Provides that the term “severe mental health disorder” does not include a personality or adjustment disorder, epilepsy, intellectual disability or other developmental disabilities, or addiction to or abuse of intoxicating substances. [PEN § 2962 (a)(2)]
9. Defines “remission” to mean a finding that the overt signs and symptoms of the severe mental health disorder are controlled either by psychotropic medication or psychosocial support. [PEN § 2962 (a)(3)]
10. Provides that a person “cannot be kept in remission without treatment” if during the year prior to the question being before BPH or a trial court, the person has been in remission and has been physically violent, except in self-defense, or has made a serious threat of substantial physical harm upon the person of another so as to cause the target of the threat to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family, or the person has intentionally caused property damage, or has not voluntarily followed the treatment plan. [PEN § 2962 (a)(3)]
11. Provides that, in determining if a person has voluntarily followed the treatment plan, the standard is whether the person has acted as a reasonable person would in following the treatment plan. [PEN § 2962 (a)(3)]
12. Allows BPH, upon a showing of good cause, to order an incarcerated person to remain in custody for up to 45 days past the scheduled release date for a full OMHD evaluation. [PEN § 2963]
13. Allows the prisoner to challenge the OMHD determination both administratively (a hearing before the board) and judicially (a superior court jury trial). [PEN § 2966]
14. Requires OMHD treatment to be inpatient treatment unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the parolee can be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis. [PEN § 2964 (a)]
15. Requires that if the person’s severe mental disorder is put into remission during the parole period and can be kept that way, the director of the hospital to notify BPH and discontinue treatment. [PEN § 2968]
16. Allows the district attorney to file a petition with the superior court seeking a one-year extension of the OMHD commitment. [PEN § 2970]
17. Provides that a qualifying inmate of a public institution shall be eligible to receive targeted Medi-Cal services for 90 days prior to release. [Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 14184.800]
18. Requires counties to spend their allocation of Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) funds as follows: 30% for housing interventions, 35% for FSPs, and 35% for Behavioral Health Services and Supports (BHSS), and defines these service categories. Requires counties to spend half of the housing category on those experiencing chronic homelessness, with an emphasis on those in encampments, and 51% of the BHSS category on early intervention, with 51% of that focused on youth 25 and younger. Allows counties some flexibility to move up to 7% from one expenditure category to another with approval from the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). [WIC § 5892]
19. Requires each county to establish an FSP program to provide: mental health, supportive, and substance use disorder treatment services; specific treatment models, such as ACT, high fidelity wraparound, and other evidence-based treatment models specified by DHCS; assertive field-based initiation for substance use disorder treatment services; outpatient behavioral health services; ongoing engagement services necessary to maintain enrolled individuals in their treatment plan inclusive of clinical and nonclinical services; service planning; and housing interventions. [WIC § 5887(a)]
20. Requires, beginning January 1, 2027, an individual with a serious mental illness to be presumptively eligible for an FSP if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
    1. Is currently experiencing unsheltered homelessness;
    2. Is transitioning to the community after six months or more in a secured treatment or residential setting, including, but not limited to, a mental health rehabilitation center, institution for mental disease, or secured skilled nursing facility;
    3. Has been detained five or more times on a 72-hold for assessment, evaluation, and treatment over the last five years; or,
    4. Is transitioning to the community after six months or more in the state prison or county jail. [WIC § 5887]
21. Establishes the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act to end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of individuals with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic alcoholism, as well as to safeguard their rights, provide prompt evaluation and treatment, and provide services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs. Permits involuntary detention of an individual deemed to be a danger to self or others, or “gravely disabled,” as defined, for periods of up to 72 hours (known as “5150 holds”) for evaluation and treatment; for up-to 14 days after certification of the need for initial intensive treatment; and up-to 30 days for additional intensive treatment in counties that opt in to provide additional intensive treatment. [WIC § 5000, et seq.]
22. Implements AOT (known as “Laura’s Law”) statewide, whereby an entity can petition for a court to order a person over the age of 18 with a mental illness to receive AOT if the court finds the individual meets specified criteria, including: a clinical determination that the person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision; the person has a history of noncompliance with treatment for their mental illness; the person's condition is substantially deteriorating; and, participation in AOT would be the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person's recovery. Permits a county or group of counties that do not wish to implement Laura’s Law to opt out of the requirements of AOT services through a specified process. [WIC §§ 5345-5349.1]
23. Establishes the CARE Act to help connect an individual (known as a “respondent”) with a court-ordered CARE agreement or CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months, that provides individualized, appropriate community-based services and supports, which include clinically appropriate behavioral health care and voluntary stabilization medications, housing, and other supportive services. [WIC § 5970, et seq.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, the OMHD program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities, but reforms on both the front-end and the back-end will better protect public safety. The author argues that the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. The author concludes this bill takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities.
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. Impetus for this bill. The case of Bill Gene Hobbs has received extensive media coverage since his release from state prison last year. Hobbs has a history of involvement with the criminal justice system for repeatedly harassing women. He has spent time in jail for misdemeanor convictions for stalking and sexual battery, and recently he was released from state prison after serving time for felony false imprisonment. After his release, Hobbs was sent to a state hospital for treatment as an OMHD, but five months later he was released when a local judge determined that he no longer satisfied criteria for commitment. Hobbs soon began to harass women on the streets of San Francisco, where he was quickly rearrested on a parole violation. Since his return to San Francisco, media outlets have asked why Hobbs was released from DSH after only a short commitment and whether more could be done to prevent his release without more monitoring.
   2. Overview of the Commitment Process for an OMHD. An OMHD commitment, formerly known as a mentally disordered offender commitment, is a post-prison civil commitment to further detain a person with a severe mental health disorder. The OMHD Act is designed to confine a mentally ill individual who is about to be released on parole when it is deemed that that the person’s mental illness not only contributed to the commission of a violent crime, but also continues to make them dangerous to others. Rather than release the person to the community, CDCR paroles the incarcerated person to the supervision of the state hospital, and the individual remains under hospital supervision throughout the parole period.

Penal Code section 2962 lists the criteria that must be proven for an initial OMHD certification, namely, whether: the incarcerated person has a severe mental disorder; the severe mental disorder was one of the causes or an aggravating factor in the commission of the offense; the disorder is not in remission or capable of being kept in remission without treatment; the incarcerated person was treated for the disorder for at least 90 days in the year before their release; and by reason of the severe mental disorder, the person poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others.

The initial determination that the incarcerated person meets the OMHD criteria is made administratively. The person in charge of treating the incarcerated person and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from the DSH evaluate the incarcerated person. If it appears that the incarcerated person qualifies, the chief psychiatrist then will certify to BPH that the person meets the criteria of an OMHD. The incarcerated person may request a hearing before BPH to require proof that they qualify as an OMHD. If the BPH determines that the person meets the criteria of an OMHD, the person may file a petition in the superior court of the county in which they are incarcerated or are being treated for a hearing on whether they, as of the date of the board hearing, meet the criteria. The person is entitled to a jury trial, which can be waived. The jury must unanimously agree that the allegations of the petition were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the superior court or jury reverses the BPH determination, the court is required to stay the execution of the decision for 30 days to allow for an orderly release of the prisoner.

• 1. LPS. The LPS Act provides for involuntary detentions for varying lengths of time for the purpose of evaluation and treatment, provided certain requirements are met, such as that an individual is taken to a county-designated facility. Designated facilities are mental health treatment facilities that are designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, approved by DHCS, and licensed as a health facility. A designated facility may include, but is not limited to, a licensed psychiatric hospital, a licensed psychiatric health facility, and certified crisis stabilization units. Typically, one first interacts with the LPS Act through a hold initiated pursuant to WIC § 5150 by a peace officer or other person authorized by a county, who must determine and document that the individual meets the standard for a hold. A county-designated facility is authorized to then involuntarily detain an individual for up to 72 hours for evaluation and treatment if they are determined to be, as a result of a mental health disorder, a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled. The professional person in charge of the county-designated facility is required to assess an individual to determine the appropriateness of the involuntary detention prior to admitting the individual. Subject to various conditions, a person who is found to be a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, can be subsequently involuntarily detained for an initial period of intensive treatment up to 14 days, an additional period of 14 days (or up to an additional 30 days in counties that have opted to provide this additional up-to 30-day intensive treatment episode), and ultimately a conservatorship, which is typically for up to one year and may be extended, as appropriate. A person can also be released prior to the end of intensive treatment if they are found to no longer meet the criteria or are prepared to accept treatment voluntarily.
  2. AOT. As an alternative to an LPS conservatorship, current law provides for court-ordered outpatient treatment through Laura’s Law, or the AOT Demonstration Project, established by AB 1421 (Thomson), Chapter 1017, Statutes of 2002, and made permanent with the passage of AB 1976 (Eggman), Chapter 140, Statutes of 2020. In participating counties, the court may order a person into an AOT program if the court finds that the person either meets existing involuntary commitment requirements under the LPS Act or the person meets non-involuntary commitment requirements, including that the person has refused treatment, their mental health condition is substantially deteriorating, and AOT would be the least restrictive level of care necessary to ensure the person’s recovery and stability in the community. AOT is available only in those counties in which the county board of supervisors, by resolution, have not opted out of its application and makes a finding that no voluntary mental health program serving adults and no children’s mental health program may be reduced to implement the law.

Laura’s Law is designed to provide counties with tools for early intervention. It allows family members, relatives, cohabitants, treatment providers, or peace officers to initiate the AOT process with a petition to the county behavioral health director or designee. The health director must then determine how to proceed. If the individual is found to meet the AOT eligibility requirements, an individual preliminary care plan is developed to meet that person’s needs. If this process results in the person voluntarily engaging with treatment, then the patient is deemed to no longer meet the criteria and the petition is no longer available. However, if the client declines their preliminary plan, then a public defender is assigned and the petition proceeds. It is then up to the judge to either grant or reject the AOT petition. If an AOT petition is approved by the court, treatment ordered is valid for up to 180 days. The law allows for a county to opt out of the requirements of Laura’s Law if by resolution adopted by the county’s governing body stating the reasons for opting out and any facts or circumstances relied upon in making that decision.

• 1. CARE Act. In 2022, the Legislature enacted SB 1338 (Umberg), known as the CARE Act. The CARE Act established a new civil court process to provide clinically appropriate, community-based services and supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, to Californians with schizophrenia spectrum disorders or bipolar I with psychotic features (referred to as the “respondent” in the CARE process), while also preserving these individuals’ self-determination to the greatest extent possible.

Under the CARE Act, a county behavioral health agency, spouse, parent, sibling, child, or grandparent of the respondent, a treating behavioral health professional, the county public guardian or public conservator, and others, as specified, may petition to begin the CARE process. If the original petitioner is not the county behavioral health agency, the county behavioral health agency will replace the original petitioner as the CARE petition proceeds. There are two paths to court-ordered services: if the respondent and the behavioral health agency are able to agree on a plan, it is known as a “CARE agreement” and if they are unable to reach an agreement, one or both parties may present a proposed “CARE plan” to the court and the court may accept a proposed plan or adopt a modified plan, which becomes a court order that lasts for up to one year. The CARE Plan/Agreement may provide for behavioral health services and housing supports, as well as other services, and counties may face financial penalties for failure to provide the required services. The court may allow the original petitioner to participate in the respondent’s CARE proceedings, to the extent that the respondent consents.

• 1. CalAIM. CalAIM is a multiyear DHCS initiative to improve cost savings and health outcomes by implementing a broad delivery of systems, programs, and payment reforms across Medi-Cal. DHCS implements CalAIM through partners with Medi-Cal providers, managed care plans, counties, community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. The behavioral health components of CalAIM are designed for Medi-Cal’s behavioral health to become a more consistent and seamless system by reducing complexity and increasing flexibility, improving quality outcomes, reducing health disparities, improving behavioral health policies, and reforming payments for behavioral health.

The Justice-Involved Reentry Initiative provides medical and behavioral health services for Medi-Cal eligible adults and youth in state prisons, county jails, and youth correctional facilities in the 90 days before their release. The initiative is focused on ensuring Medi-Cal members have continuity of coverage and are supported to enable access to key services to help them successfully return to their communities. Medi-Cal members who receive pre-release services in prison, jail, or a youth correctional facility are screened to identify their needs and receive a comprehensive care transition plan to coordinate the medical, behavioral, and social services that will support them following release. This includes screening and transition planning for health-related social needs, like housing and food supports, and other services, such as In-Home Supportive Services, to provide whole-person wraparound supports to the individuals upon release. Further, all Medi-Cal members who are eligible for pre-release services may receive reentry support from an Enhanced Care Management care manager, both while the individual is still in custody and for a period of up to 12 months after the individual is released from the prison, jail, or youth correctional facility.

The DHCS Policy and Operational Guide for implementation of the Justice-Involved Initiative specifies that targeted pre-release services will only be provided to individuals prior to leaving a correctional facility and reentering the community. Generally, individuals who are in state hospitals and return to prisons or jails prior to their release and will be eligible to receive services upon their return to the correctional facility. Based on the waiver authority granted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, individuals who are incarcerated in the correctional facility but incompetent to stand trial and awaiting placement in a state hospital may not receive pre-release services if they will not be released into the community. There may be circumstances where an individual is found to be incompetent to stand trial and transferred to a state hospital from a jail to get a mental health assessment. In situations where the individual is transferred back to the jail, the 90-day period will restart. Medi-Cal reimbursement for pre-release services will not be available while the individual is in the state hospital.

1. SUPPORT. The California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP) support this bill stating that the absence of clear standards for evaluating dangerousness and the lack of structured exit planning can result in abrupt termination of OMHD classification and direct discharge to the community without adequate clinical coordination or safeguards. CSAP contends a violence risk assessment is most effective when it incorporates well-established factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward others or oneself, patterns of violent behavior, prior violent offenses, treatment compliance and response, and prior state hospital commitments. Establishing these factors in statute will help ensure that risk evaluations are thorough, consistent, and informed by evidence-based practices. CSAP argues this bill strengthens continuity of care by requiring structured exit plans and by allowing individuals in state hospitals to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive Medi-Cal services during the 90 days prior to release, aligning them with policies already available to people leaving prisons and jails. CSAP concludes these provisions support effective coordination and timely access to psychiatric care, medication, and community-based services—interventions that are essential for stabilizing serious mental illness and reducing the likelihood of relapse or re-offense.
2. CONCERNS. The County Behavioral Health Director’s Association (CBHDA) expresses concerns with this bill stating that the proposed elements of the exit plan could lead to potentially significant increases in CARE Court petitions and respondents, and while any increase in CARE costs is to be funded by the state, the costs for the clinical determination by behavioral health clinicians and subsequent treatment are not, and present fiscal pressures for county behavioral health programs. CBHDA states that the FSP presumptive eligibility criteria presents a future increase in workload and costs to counties to assume the newly eligible population and is of serious concern along with the already concerning expansion in this area of the law by previous legislation.

Disability Rights California (DRC) also expresses concerns with this bill would increase the volume of people funneled into the most restrictive mental health programs in California. In particular, this bill would require CDCR to determine whether people with mental health disabilities leaving CDCR may be eligible for interventions such as court-ordered AOT, CARE Court, or an involuntary hold or conservatorship. DRC argues that if agencies have concerns about people who do not consent to voluntary mental health programs, they have other mechanisms to petition the courts, so this bill is unnecessary. DRC contends that requiring CDCR to make such determinations as part of an “exit plan” raises concerns on how these determinations will be completed if people do not consent to them, what will happen to someone who does not consent to them, the quality of determinations, potential delays in release dates, workforce shortages in relevant departments and programs, and significant administrative costs to implement this bill.

1. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double referred; it was heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 17, 2026 and passed by a vote of 9-0.
2. RELATED LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 1782 (DeMaio) would reduce the number of factors to which the chief psychiatrist of CDCR must certify to BPH prior to the involuntary commitment of an OMHD. AB 1782 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   2. AB 1897 (Haney) would require the chief psychiatrist of CDCR to certify among other things that a incarcerated person represents a threat of physical harm to others, rather than a substantial danger of physical harm to others. AB 1897 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
3. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 348 (Krell), Chapter 688, Statutes of 2025, establishes specific criteria that would make a person with a serious mental illness (SMI) presumptively eligible for an FSP, including the person is transitioning to the community after six months or more in a state prison or county jail, has been detained five or more times as a danger to themselves or others, or gravely disabled, over the last five years, or is currently experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Specifies that a county is not required to enroll an individual if doing so would conflict with contractual Medi-Cal obligations or court orders, or would exceed county FSP capacity or funding.
   2. AB 2475 (Haney), Chapter 963, Statutes of 2024, requires a court to stay the execution of a decision determining an incarcerated person is not an OMHD for up to 30 days, instead of the current five working days, in order to allow for the person’s orderly release.
   3. SB 326 (Eggman), Chapter 790, Statutes of 2023, recasts the Mental Health Services Act as the BHSA and modifies state and local spending requirements, including the establishment of the FSP program in statute, and creates additional oversight and reporting requirements for counties.
   4. SB 591 (Galgiani), Chapter 649, Statutes 2019, states that a practicing psychiatrist or DSH or CDCR psychologist be afforded prompt and unimpeded access to an inmate temporarily housed at a county jail, when the psychiatrist or psychologist is conducting an evaluation of the inmate as an OMHD; and made changes to the process to determine whether an inmate is an OMHD.
4. POLICY COMMENTS.
   1. Criteria and exit plan. A factor to be considered includes prior history of state hospital commitment. While there are categories of forensic commitments to DSH, prior history of a civil commitment may have no bearing on whether a person currently presents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Currently the exit plan proposed by the bill requires the treating psychiatrist to make determinations about the appropriateness of various county mental health programs. It may be more appropriate for the psychiatrist to make recommendations to the county behavioral health director.
   2. CalAIM. The Justice-Involved Initiative currently does not include people releasing directly from state hospitals to the community. Moving forward, the author may wish to explore with DHCS the policy rationale for the exclusion of those discharging from state hospitals and whether the state has the flexibility to include them under current waiver author granted by CMS or whether the state would need to seek an amendment.
   3. FSP eligibility. The new FSP programs under the BHSA go into effect July 1, 2026. Under AB 348 (Krell), Chapter 688, Statutes of 2025, new presumptive eligibility criteria for FSPs take effect on January 1, 2027. Under this bill, discharge from a state hospital would be added to those presumptive eligibility criteria. While those exiting a state hospital seem like a population likely to benefit from FSPs, moving forward the committee may wish to consider how ongoing implementation of the BHSA requirements is proceeding before making further changes.
5. COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. The committee may wish to amend this bill as follows:
   1. Specify that consideration of prior history of state hospital commitment be limited to forensic commitments;
   2. Specify that the county behavioral health department should be consulted in developing the exit plan; and,
   3. Strike from the elements of the exit plan the determinations about appropriateness for various mental health programs and instead require the treating psychiatrist to make recommendations on county resources and programs appropriate for individuals exiting treatment pursuant to this bill, including, but not limited to, the following: suicide prevention; substance use disorder treatment; Medi-Cal Enhanced Care Management; Full Service Partnership pursuant to Section 5887 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; Assisted Outpatient Treatment pursuant to Section 5346 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, pursuant to Section 5978 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; and early psychosis intervention services.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Association of Psychiatrists

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Logan Hess / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097

Date of Hearing:

Chief Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Specifies factors that a chief psychiatrist of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall consider when determining whether an incarcerated person with a severe mental health disorder poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides the factors that shall be considered in determining whether an offender poses a substantial danger of physical harm to others, include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
   
   1. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location.
   2. A recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward themselves.
      
   3. A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves or another individual, group or location.
      
   4. A history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses.
      
   5. Treatment compliance history and response to treatment.
      
   6. Prior history of state hospital commitment.
      
2. Requires an exit plan for an incarcerated person whose offender with a mental health disorder (OMHD) determination has been reversed to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
   
   1. The submission of a Medi-Cal application.
      
   2. A determination of appropriateness for Assisted Outpatient Treatment, a petition under the CARE Act, or a forensic assertive community treatment program.
      
   3. A determination of whether the offender appears to the court or a qualified mental health expert to be gravely disabled, as specified. To ensure the respondent’s safety, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) may apply to the offender’s county of last legal residence for a court-ordered mental health evaluation using the existing legal process, as specified.
      
3. Requires CDCR, for an incarcerated person whose OMHD determination has been reversed, to additionally notify the behavior health department of the county of supervision of the person’s pending release within five working days of the court order of release.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that, as a condition of parole, a prisoner who meets the following criteria shall be provided necessary treatment by the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) as follows:
   
   1. The prisoner has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment.
      
   2. The severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime for which the prisoner was sentenced to prison.
      
   3. The prisoner has been in treatment for the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner’s parole or release.
      
   4. Prior to release on parole, the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from DSH have evaluated the prisoner at a facility of the CDCR, and a chief psychiatrist of CDCR has certified to BPH the following:
      
      1. The incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder;
         
      2. The disorder is not in remission and cannot be kept in remission without treatment;
         
      3. The severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the prisoner’s criminal behavior;
         
      4. The prisoner has been in treatment of the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the prisoner’s parole release day; and,
         
      5. By reason of the prisoner’s severe mental health disorder, the prisoner represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subds. (a)-(d).)
         
2. Provides that, if the professionals doing the evaluation do not concur that (A) the prisoner has a severe mental health disorder, (B) that the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, or (C) that the severe mental health disorder was a cause of, or aggravated, the prisoner’s criminal behavior, and a chief psychiatrist has certified the prisoner to the BPH pursuant to this paragraph, BPH shall order a further examination by two independent professionals, as provided. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d)(2).)
   
3. Provides that, if at least one of the independent professionals who evaluate the prisoner concurs with the chief psychiatrist’s certification of the issues, the person may be involuntarily committed. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d)(3).)
   
4. States that the crimes which qualify an individual for involuntary commitment if the individual’s severe mental health disorder was one of the causes of, was an aggravating factor in its commission, meets both of the following criteria:
   
   1. The defendant received a determinate sentence, as specified, for the crime; and,
      
   2. The crime for, among others, voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; kidnapping, a specified; robbery with a deadly or dangerous weapon, as specified; carjacking with a deadly or dangerous weapon, as specified; rape and other sex crimes, as specified; arson, as specified; a felony in which the defendant used a firearm, as specified; attempted murder; a crime in which the prisoner used force or violence, or caused serious bodily injury, as specified; and a crime in which the perpetrator expressly or impliedly threatened another with the use of force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe and expect that the force or violence would be used. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (e)(1) & (2).)
      
5. Provides that the existence or nature of the crime for which the person has been convicted may be shown with documentary evidence. The details underlying the commission of the offense that led to the conviction, including the use of force or violence, causing serious bodily injury, or the threat to use force or violence likely to produce substantial physical harm, may be shown by documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, preliminary hearing transcripts, trial transcripts, probation and sentencing reports, and evaluations by DSH. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (f).)
   
6. Provides that “substantial danger of physical harm” does not require proof of a recent overt act. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (g).)
   
7. Defines “severe mental health disorder” to mean an illness, disease, or condition that substantially impairs the person’s thought, perception of reality, emotional process, or judgment; or that grossly impairs behavior; or that demonstrates evidence of an acute brain syndrome for which prompt remission, in the absence of treatment, is unlikely. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(2).)
   
8. Provides that the term “severe mental health disorder” does not include a personality or adjustment disorder, epilepsy, intellectual disability or other developmental disabilities, or addiction to or abuse of intoxicating substances. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(2).)
   
9. Defines “remission” to mean a finding that the overt signs and symptoms of the severe mental health disorder are controlled either by psychotropic medication or psychosocial support. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(3).)
   
10. Provides that a person “cannot be kept in remission without treatment” if during the year prior to the question being before BPH or a trial court, the person has been in remission and has been physically violent, except in self-defense, or has made a serious threat of substantial physical harm upon the person of another so as to cause the target of the threat to reasonably fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family, or the person has intentionally caused property damage, or has not voluntarily followed the treatment plan. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(3).)
    
11. Provides that, in determining if a person has voluntarily followed the treatment plan, the standard is whether the person has acted as a reasonable person would in following the treatment plan. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(3).)
    
12. Allows BPH, upon a showing of good cause, to order an incarcerated person to remain in custody for up to 45 days past the scheduled release date for a full OMHD evaluation. (Pen. Code § 2963.)
    
13. Allows the prisoner to challenge the OMHD determination both administratively (a hearing before the board) and judicially (a superior court jury trial). (Pen. Code § 2966.)
    
14. Requires OMHD treatment to be inpatient treatment unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the parolee can be safely and effectively treated on an outpatient basis. (Pen. Code, § 2964, subd. (a).)
    
15. Specifies that if the person’s severe mental disorder is put into remission during the parole period and can be kept that way, the director of the hospital shall notify BPH and shall discontinue treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2968.)
    
16. Allows the district attorney to file a petition with the superior court seeking a one-year extension of the OMHD commitment. (Pen. Code, § 2970.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “The Offenders with Mental Health Disorders (OMHD) program is a key tool to help ensure that formerly incarcerated individuals can safely and smoothly transition back to our California communities. But reforms on both the front-end and the back-end will better protect public safety. Specifically, the existing criteria used to determine eligibility for the OMHD program have been broadly interpreted, allowing offenders with severe conditions to successfully challenge their status in court and reenter society, even though they pose a serious risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, once these individuals are released, they lack access to appropriate services. AB 1825 takes a multi-layered approach, addressing these issues by requiring specific criteria to be evaluated when determining OMHD status, further defining what constitutes an exit plan, and expanding Medi-Cal eligibility. This ensures that those who need treatment receive it and prioritizes the safety of our communities.”
   
2. Impetus for this Bill: The impetus for AB 1782 is the case of Bill Gene Hobbs, a story that has received extensive media coverage since his release from state prison last year.^[1] Hobbs has a history of involvement with the criminal justice system for repeatedly harassing women.^[2] He has spent time in jail for misdemeanor convictions for stalking and sexual battery, and recently he was released from state prison after serving time for felony false imprisonment.^[3] After his release, Hobbs was sent to a state hospital for treatment as an OMHD, but five months later he was released when a local judge determined that he no longer satisfied criteria for commitment.^[4] Hobbs soon began to harass women on the streets of San Francisco, where he was quickly rearrested on a parole violation.^[5]
   
   Since his return to San Francisco, media outlets have asked why Hobbs was released from DSH after only a short commitment and whether more could be done to prevent his release without more monitoring.^[6]
   
3. Overview of the Commitment Process for an OMHD: Existing law provides that, as a condition of parole, an incarcerated person who meets specified criteria can be involuntarily committed to DSH for treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962 et seq.) The OMHD scheme is designed to confine an incarcerated person who is about to be released on parole if they suffer from a severe mental health disorder that contributed to the commission of their crime. Rather than release them to the community, CDCR paroles the incarcerated person to the supervision of DSH, and the person remains under DSH supervision throughout the parole period. (Pen. Code, § 2962). Treatment can continue for one year upon termination of parole (Pen. Code § 2970), and treatment can be extended for an additional year after expiration of the original, or previous, one-year commitment (Pen. Code § 2972). (People v. Cobb (2010) 48 Cal.4th 243, 251.)
   
   Commitment as an OMHD requires a showing that the incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder that is not in remission or that cannot be kept in remission without treatment. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(1).) Existing law defines “severe mental health disorder” as an illness, disease, or condition that substantially impairs the person’s thought, perception of reality, emotional process, or judgment; or that grossly impairs behavior; or that demonstrates evidence of an acute brain syndrome for which prompt remission, in the absence of treatment, is unlikely. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (a)(2).) The severe mental health disorder also must have been one of the causes of, or have been an aggravating factor in, the commission of a crime for which the person was sentenced. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (b).) The incarcerated person must also have been in treatment for the disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to parole or release. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (c).)
   
   The initial determination that an incarcerated person qualifies as an OMHD is made administratively. Prior to release on parole, the person in charge of treating the incarcerated person and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from DSH must have evaluated the person at a CDCR facility, and a chief psychiatrist of CDCR must have certified to BPH that the incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder; that the disorder is not in remission and cannot be kept in remission without treatment; that the disorder was one of the causes of, or was an aggravating factor in, the incarcerated person’s criminal behavior; that the incarcerated person has been in treatment of the severe mental health disorder for 90 days or more within the year prior to the incarcerated person’s parole release day; and that, by reason of their severe mental health disorder, the incarcerated person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d).)
   
   If the professionals doing the evaluation do not agree that incarcerated person has a severe mental health disorder, that the disorder is not in remission or cannot be kept in remission without treatment, or that the severe mental health disorder was a cause of, or aggravated, the prisoner’s criminal behavior, and a chief psychiatrist has certified the incarcerated person BPH, then BPH must order an examination of the incarcerated person by two independent professionals. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d)(2).) If at least one of the independent professionals who evaluate the person concurs with the chief psychiatrist’s certification of the incarcerated person as an OMHD, the person can be involuntarily committed. (Pen. Code, § 2962, subd. (d)(3).)
   
   The incarcerated person may request a hearing before BPH to require proof that that they qualify as an OMHD. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (a).) If BPH determines that the person qualifies, the inmate may file, in the superior court of the county in which he or she is incarcerated or is being treated, a petition for a jury trial. (Pen. Code, § 2966, subd. (b).) The jury must unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the inmate is an OMHD. (Ibid.) If the jury, or the court if a jury trial is waived, reverses the determination of BPH, the court is required to stay the execution of the decision for five working days to allow for an orderly release of the incarcerated person. (Ibid.)
   
4. Constitutionality of the OMHD Statute: The OMHD law was enacted in 1985. Unlike existing law, the original statute did not require a finding that the incarcerated person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. (People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1211, 1227) However, other involuntary commitment statutes required a showing of dangerousness. Because of this discrepancy, the law was challenged as a violation of the equal protection clause of both the state and federal constitutions.

The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution requires at a minimum that persons standing in the same relation to a challenged government action will be uniformly treated. Traditionally, social and economic legislation will be upheld if the classification drawn by the statutes is rationally related to legitimate state interests.  When the classification touches on a fundamental right, it must be judicially determined under the strictest standard whether it is necessary to promote a compelling government interest. Whether a right is fundamental depends on whether it is implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

Although freedom from involuntary custodial confinement would appear to be the equivalent of "liberty" explicitly guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the United States Supreme Court has not expressly held that classifications touching upon liberty are fundamental for these purposes. [In cases] related to challenged classifications in substance and procedure for involuntary commitment, the court appears to use the traditional rational basis test. Consequently for purposes of federal law analysis so shall we.

Any equal protection challenge requires a determination whether the groups which are differently treated are similarly situated for purposes of the law. If they are not, no equal protection claim is applicable. People v. Gibson (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1425, 1435-1436 (internal citations omitted).)

The court observed that the OMHD scheme was similar to other statutes that provided for the involuntary commitment of people for treatment and for the protection of the public, “for renewable periods, until they no longer pose a danger to the public whether or not they remain mentally ill.” (Id. at p. 1436.) The court compared OMHDs to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity who had been involuntarily committed after a term of imprisonment and to juveniles with mental health disorders who, “now adults, have been recommitted after” imprisonment (Ibid.) Each group of individuals had been found to have committed a criminal offense, and the commitment of both OMHDs and individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity rested on the link between their mental health disorders and their criminal conduct. (Id. at p. 1437.) According to the court, under the law as originally enacted, “The [OMHD] commitment scheme, however, contains one critical and significant difference from all the others; it does not require proof of any present dangerousness as a result of mental illness for commitment or recommitment.” (Id. at p. 1436.) Because OMHDs were treated differently from these similarly situated groups, the court called it “unreasonable and arbitrary to exempt [OMHD’s] from a requirement of proof of dangerousness applicable to all other persons subject to involuntary commitment,” thereby violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Id. at pp. 1440-1441.)

Further, holding that the original OMHD scheme also violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, the court added:

It must be remembered that appellant and those in this class of [OMHD] committees are all legally sane and have been subject to punishment for their offenses for the term prescribed by the Legislature. At the end of their terms even the most dangerous offenders and most likely recidivists are subject to release so long as they are not mentally ill as defined. Unless proven to be dangerous the equal protection clause requires the mentally ill inmate must also be released from custody. (Id. at pp. 1442-1443.)

In response the court’s ruling, the Legislature quickly passed urgency legislation that incorporated the language contained in current law—that the incarcerated person must “represent[] a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (People v. Harrison (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1211, 1227; People v. Superior Court (Myers) 50 Cal.App.4th 826, 830.)

OMHDs remain similarly situated to other persons involuntarily committed because they represent a danger to others. For example, like with OMHDs, a defendant found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity still may be committed to DSH beyond the original prescribed term “if the person…by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.” (Pen. Code, § 1026.5, subd. (b)(1) (emphasis added); see also Welf. & Inst., § 5008, subd. (h)(1)(B)(iv) (defining a person “found mentally incompetent [because]…among several factors, the person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder” to be “gravely disabled” for purposes of conservatorship) (emphasis added).

1. Other OMHD Bills Before the Committee: In addition to this bill, the committee has been referred two additional bills seeking to address the involuntary commitment of OMHDs—AB 1782 (DeMaio) and AB 1897 (Haney). AB 1782 would dispel with the necessity that the chief psychiatrist of CDCR certify to BPH that a person is suffering from a severe mental health disorder that was one of the causes of, or an aggravating factor in, the person’s criminal behavior. It would require neither that the person’s severe mental health disorder contributed to their criminal conduct nor that the person represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.
   
   As currently in print, AB 1897 would require the chief psychiatrist of CDCR to certify among other things that an incarcerated person represents a “threat of physical harm to others,” rather than a substantial danger of physical harm to others. It would also require the person to undergo the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 assessment as published by the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute at Simon Fraser University in Canada, in addition to any other test or assessment the evaluating professionals deem appropriate
   
   Unlike the other two bills, AB 1825 does not dispense with the requirement that the person represent a substantial danger to the physical harm to others. Rather than providing for commitment without a showing of dangerousness or changing the risk standard, AB 1825 would clarify the factors the CDCR chief psychiatrist must consider when determining whether an incarcerated person, as a result of a severe mental health disorder, represents a “substantial danger of physical harm” to others. Specifically, AB 1825 would require the chief psychiatrist to consider recent threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward another individual, group, or location; recent threats of violence or acts of violence directed toward themselves; a pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months; a history of violent behavior, including prior convictions for violent offenses; treatment compliance history and response to treatment; and a prior history of state hospital commitment.
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the California State Association of Psychiatrists, “Current law allows the Board of Parole Hearings to require treatment for individuals whose severe mental disorder contributed to the commission of a violent offense and who, as a result of that disorder, may represent a substantial danger of physical harm to others. However, the absence of clear standards for evaluating dangerousness and the lack of structured exit planning can result in abrupt termination of OMHD classification and direct discharge to the community without adequate clinical coordination or safeguards.
   
   “A violence risk assessment is most effective when it incorporates well-established factors, including recent threats or acts of violence toward others or oneself, patterns of violent behavior, prior violent offenses, treatment compliance and response, and prior state hospital commitments. Establishing these factors in statute will help ensure that risk evaluations are thorough, consistent, and informed by evidence-based practices. AB 1825 recognizes the importance of coordinated reentry planning by requiring collaboration with county behavioral health departments and consideration of programs such as Assisted Outpatient Treatment, CARE Court, or Forensic Assertive Community Treatment when individuals are released to the community.
   
   “Finally, this legislation strengthens continuity of care by requiring structured exit plans and by allowing individuals in state hospitals to enroll in Medi-Cal and receive Medi-Cal services during the 90 days prior to release, aligning them with policies already available to people leaving prisons and jails. These provisions support effective coordination and timely access to psychiatric care, medication, and community-based services—interventions that are essential for stabilizing serious mental illness and reducing the likelihood of relapse or re-offense.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: None submitted.
   
4. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1782 (DeMaio) would reduce the number of factors to which the chief psychiatrist of CDCR to BPH prior to the involuntary commitment of a OMHD. AB 1782 will be heard today in this committee.
      
   2. AB 1897 (Haney) would require the chief psychiatrist of CDCR to certify among other things that a incarcerated person represents a threat of physical harm to others, rather than a substantial danger of physical harm to others. AB 1897 is pending a hearing in this committee.
      
5. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. SB 591 (Galgiani), Chapter 649, Statutes 2019, stated that a practicing psychiatrist or DSH or CDCR psychologist be afforded prompt and unimpeded access to an inmate temporarily housed at a county jail, when the psychiatrist or psychologist is conducting an evaluation of the inmate as a MDO; and made changes to the process to determine whether an inmate is a MDO.
      
   2. SB 350 (Galgiani), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, would have required the disclosure of medical, dental, and mental health information between a county correctional facility, a county medical facility, a state correctional facility, a state hospital, or a state-assigned mental health provider when an inmate is transferred from or between state and county facilities, as specified. SB 350 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   3. SB 1443 (Galgiani), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have permitted the sharing of medical, mental health and dental information between correctional facilities, as specified. SB 1443 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   4. SB 1295 (Nielsen), Chapter 430, Statutes of 2016, authorized the use of documentary evidence for purposes of satisfying the criteria used to evaluate whether a prisoner released on parole is required to be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals as an MDO.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Association of Psychiatrists (CSAP)

Opposition

Analysis Prepared by:

1. See, e.g., Vainshtein, et al., Convicted groper back in SF after prison – and again approaching women, S.F. Chronicle (Oct. 20, 2025) <https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/bill-gene-hobbs-released-san-francisco-21110868.php> [as of Mar. 11, 2026]; Kukura, Serial Harasser Bill Gene Hobbs Apparently Out of State Prison, Back to Harassing Women on SF Streets, SFist (Oct. 21, 2025) <https://sfist.com/2025/10/21/serial-harasser-bill-gene-hobbs-apparently-out-of-state-prison-back-to-harassing-women-on-sf-streets/> [as of Mar. 11, 2026]; Wang, Convicted harasser back in jail after reportedly approaching women in San Franciso, ABC7 News (Oct. 24, 2025) <https://abc7news.com/post/convicted-harasser-prison-seen-approaching-women-san-francisco-report-says/18054316/> [as of March 11, 2026]; Editorial Board, Why was Bill Gene Hobbs back on S.F. streets? His case shows the state of California’s justice system, S.F. Chronicle (Nov. 3, 2025) <https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/california-san-francisco-bill-gene-hobbs-21122904.php> [as of Mar. 11, 2026]. ↑

2. Vainshtein, supra. ↑

3. Wang, supra. ↑

4. Editorial Board, supra; see also Wang, supra. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑