California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Enacted Bipartisan · 12 D · 1 R cosponsors

SB 1338 — Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2022. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 98% · high confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 26 sponsors

    1 primary, 25 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Bipartisan support

    Sponsored across 2 parties (12 D · 1 R) — cross-party backing.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 10 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002, known as Laura's Law, requires each county to offer specified mental health programs, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for short-term and longer-term involuntary treatment and conservatorships for people who are determined to be gravely disabled. This bill, contingent upon the State Department of Health Care Services developing an allocation to provide financial assistance to counties, would enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would require the Counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne and the City and County of San Francisco to implement the program commencing October 1, 2023, and the remaining counties to commence no later than December 1, 2024. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use in filing a CARE process petition and would specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to contain specified information, including the facts that support the petitioner's assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria. The bill would also specify the schedule of review hearings required if the respondent is ordered to comply with an up to one-year CARE plan by the court. The bill would make the hearings in a CARE Act proceeding confidential and not open to the public, thereby limiting public access to a meeting of a public body. The bill would authorize the CARE plan to be extended once, for up to one year, and would prescribe the requirements for the graduation plan. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing additional duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the respondent, unless the respondent has retained their own counsel. The bill would require the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission at the State Bar to provide funding to qualified legal services projects to provide legal counsel in CARE Act proceedings, as specified. The bill would authorize the respondent to have a supporter, as defined. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to provide optional training and technical resources for volunteer supporters on the CARE process, community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and other topics, as prescribed. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within that agency, to engage an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures for the CARE Act and to convene a workgroup to provide coordination and support among relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation of the CARE Act. The bill also would require the State Department of Health Care Services to provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to implement the act and to provide training to counsel, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and others, to provide training to judges regarding the CARE process, as specified. This bill would authorize the court, at any time during the CARE process, if it finds the county or other local government entity not complying with court orders, to report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court or their designee. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government has substantially failed to comply with the CARE process, the presiding judge may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day and, if the court finds persistent noncompliance, to appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the county's cost. The bill would establish the CARE Act Accountability Fund in the State Treasury to receive the fines collected under the Act, which would, upon appropriation, be allocated and distributed by the department to the local government entity that paid the fines to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council, to develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts and would require the Judicial Council to aggregate the data and submit it to the department. The bill would require the department, in consultation with various other entities, to develop an annual CARE Act report and would require county behavioral health agencies and other local governmental entities to provide the department with specified information for that report. The bill would require an independent, research-based entity retained by the department to develop an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act and would require the department to produce a preliminary and final report based on that evaluation. By increasing the duties of a local agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt a county or an employee or agent of a county from civil or criminal liability for any action by a respondent in the CARE process, except when an act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. 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, establishes the Mental Health Services Fund (MHSF) , a continuously appropriated fund, to fund various county mental health programs, including children's mental health care, adult and older adult mental health care, prevention and early intervention programs, and innovative programs. This bill would clarify that MHSA funds may be used to provide services to individuals under a CARE agreement or a CARE plan. (2) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Violation of the Knox-Keene Act by a health care service plan is a crime. This bill would require health care service plans and insurers to cover the cost of developing an evaluation for CARE process services and the provision of all health care services for an enrollee or insured when required or recommended for the person pursuant to a CARE plan, as specified, without cost sharing, except for prescription drugs, and regardless of whether the services are provided by an in-network or out-of-network provider. Because a violation of this requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment, with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law suspends a criminal action pending restoration to competency. This bill, for a misdemeanor defendant who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial, would authorize the court to refer the defendant to the CARE process. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) This bill would state that its provisions are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1223 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1223 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 5374.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (August 11).

  12. August 3 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  13. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (June 28).

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HEALTH.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 3916.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  22. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3793.) (May 19).

  23. Set for hearing May 19.

  24. May 16 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  25. Set for hearing May 16.

  26. May 9 hearing postponed by committee.

  27. Set for hearing May 9.

  28. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3543.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  29. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 3515.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  30. Set for hearing April 26.

  31. Referral to Com. on HUMAN S. rescinded because of the limitations placed on committee hearings due to ongoing health and safety risks of the COVID-19 virus.

  32. Re-referred to Coms. on JUD., HEALTH, and HUMAN S.

  33. Set for hearing April 27 in HEALTH pending receipt.

  34. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  35. Withdrawn from committee.

  36. April 26 hearing postponed by committee.

  37. Set for hearing April 26.

  38. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  39. Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.

  40. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  41. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  42. From printer.

  43. Article IV Section 8(a) of the Constitution and Joint Rule 55 dispensed with February 7, 2022, suspending the 30 calendar day requirement.

  44. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 25 co-sponsors · 96 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (25)

Not signed on (96)

96 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 96 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB1338 Umberg et al. Concurrence

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Republican 4000
Unaffiliated 23000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Roth — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Pan — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Min — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Newman — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

SB 1338 Umberg Senate Third Reading By Gipson

Passed 73 Yea · 2 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 28103
Unaffiliated 37101
Republican 8001
Total 73205
% of votes cast 91%3%0%6%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Mayes — Not Voting
Mathis — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Gray — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Nay
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Not Voting
Kalra, Ash Democratic Nay
Lee, Alex Democratic Not Voting
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6001
Democratic 6001
Republican 1001
Total 13003
% of votes cast 81%0%0%19%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Wood — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Luz Rivas — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Health]

Passed 9 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Democratic 3100
Republican 1000
Total 9100
% of votes cast 90%10%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Nay
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading SB1338 Umberg et al.

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Unaffiliated 22001
Republican 4000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Pan — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Min — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Newman — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hertzberg — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4001
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Not Voting
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3000
Unaffiliated 6001
Republican 0001
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Gonzalez — Yea
Roth — Yea
Pan — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Melendez — Not Voting
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Health]

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 6000
Unaffiliated 3001
Republican 1000
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Hertzberg — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Borgeas — Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights healthcare labor health-insurance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1338 do?
(1) Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002, known as Laura's Law, requires each county to offer specified mental health programs, unless a county or group of counties opts out by a resolution passed by the governing body, as specified. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for short-term and longer-term involuntary treatment and conservatorships for people who are determined to be gravely disabled. This bill, contingent upon the State Department of Health Care Services developing an allocation to provide financial assistance to counties, would enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would require the Counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne and the City and County of San Francisco to implement the program commencing October 1, 2023, and the remaining counties to commence no later than December 1, 2024. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use in filing a CARE process petition and would specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to contain specified information, including the facts that support the petitioner's assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria. The bill would also specify the schedule of review hearings required if the respondent is ordered to comply with an up to one-year CARE plan by the court. The bill would make the hearings in a CARE Act proceeding confidential and not open to the public, thereby limiting public access to a meeting of a public body. The bill would authorize the CARE plan to be extended once, for up to one year, and would prescribe the requirements for the graduation plan. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing additional duties on the county behavioral health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the court to appoint counsel for the respondent, unless the respondent has retained their own counsel. The bill would require the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission at the State Bar to provide funding to qualified legal services projects to provide legal counsel in CARE Act proceedings, as specified. The bill would authorize the respondent to have a supporter, as defined. The bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to provide optional training and technical resources for volunteer supporters on the CARE process, community services and supports, supported decisionmaking, and other topics, as prescribed. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency, or a designated department within that agency, to engage an independent, research-based entity to advise on the development of data-driven process and outcome measures for the CARE Act and to convene a workgroup to provide coordination and support among relevant state and local partners and other stakeholders throughout the phases of county implementation of the CARE Act. The bill also would require the State Department of Health Care Services to provide training and technical assistance to county behavioral health agencies to implement the act and to provide training to counsel, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council, in consultation with the department and others, to provide training to judges regarding the CARE process, as specified. This bill would authorize the court, at any time during the CARE process, if it finds the county or other local government entity not complying with court orders, to report that finding to the presiding judge of the superior court or their designee. If the presiding judge or their designee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the local government has substantially failed to comply with the CARE process, the presiding judge may impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day and, if the court finds persistent noncompliance, to appoint a special master to secure court-ordered care for the respondent at the county's cost. The bill would establish the CARE Act Accountability Fund in the State Treasury to receive the fines collected under the Act, which would, upon appropriation, be allocated and distributed by the department to the local government entity that paid the fines to serve individuals who have schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness, criminal justice involvement, hospitalization, or conservatorship. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the Judicial Council, to develop an annual reporting schedule for the submission of CARE Act data from the trial courts and would require the Judicial Council to aggregate the data and submit it to the department. The bill would require the department, in consultation with various other entities, to develop an annual CARE Act report and would require county behavioral health agencies and other local governmental entities to provide the department with specified information for that report. The bill would require an independent, research-based entity retained by the department to develop an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the CARE Act and would require the department to produce a preliminary and final report based on that evaluation. By increasing the duties of a local agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt a county or an employee or agent of a county from civil or criminal liability for any action by a respondent in the CARE process, except when an act or omission constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. 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, establishes the Mental Health Services Fund (MHSF) , a continuously appropriated fund, to fund various county mental health programs, including children's mental health care, adult and older adult mental health care, prevention and early intervention programs, and innovative programs. This bill would clarify that MHSA funds may be used to provide services to individuals under a CARE agreement or a CARE plan. (2) Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law also provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plans and insurers to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Violation of the Knox-Keene Act by a health care service plan is a crime. This bill would require health care service plans and insurers to cover the cost of developing an evaluation for CARE process services and the provision of all health care services for an enrollee or insured when required or recommended for the person pursuant to a CARE plan, as specified, without cost sharing, except for prescription drugs, and regardless of whether the services are provided by an in-network or out-of-network provider. Because a violation of this requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law establishes a process by which a defendant's mental competency is evaluated and by which the defendant receives treatment, with the goal of returning the defendant to competency. Existing law suspends a criminal action pending restoration to competency. This bill, for a misdemeanor defendant who has been determined to be incompetent to stand trial, would authorize the court to refer the defendant to the CARE process. (4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (5) This bill would state that its provisions are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1370.01 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1223 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1223 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 1338?
SB 1338 is sponsored by Irwin, Jacqui (Democratic), Umberg, Thomas J. (Democratic), Eggman, Allen, Benjamin (Democratic), Archuleta, Bob (Democratic), Caballero, Anna M. (Democratic), Cortese, Dave (Democratic), Dodd, Hertzberg, Newman, Portantino, Stern, Henry I. (Democratic), Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. (Democratic), Berman, Marc (Democratic), Bloom, Chen, Phillip (Republican), Cooper, Cunningham, Gipson, Mike A. (Democratic), Haney, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Cottie (Democratic), Rodriguez, Santiago, and Villapudua.
What is the current status of SB 1338?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 18, 2022. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1338?
Track SB 1338 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1338

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1338

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →