California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 100 — Mental Health Services Act.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 4 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

Existing law contains provisions governing the operation and financing of community mental health services for the mentally disordered in every county through locally administered and locally controlled community mental health programs. Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act, 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 act provides that it may be amended by the Legislature by a 23 vote of each house as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the act, and that the Legislature may also clarify procedures and terms of the act by majority vote. Existing law establishes the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Under existing law, the commission is required to annually review and approve county mental health programs for expenditures relating to innovative programs and prevention and early intervention programs. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Mental Health to provide technical assistance to county mental health plans, as specified. This bill would delete the requirement for these annual reviews and would authorize the commission, instead of the department, to provide technical assistance to the county mental health plans. Existing law requires each county mental health program to prepare and submit a 3-year plan to be updated at least annually and approved by the department after review and comment by the commission. This bill would delete the annual update requirement for the 3-year plans and the requirement that the plans be approved by the department after review and comment by the commission. The act establishes the Mental Health Services Fund, continuously appropriated to and administered by the department, to fund specified county mental health programs. The act prohibits funds from the Mental Health Services Fund from being used to supplant existing state or county funds utilized to provide mental health services, and requires state financial support for mental health programs with not less than the same entitlements, amounts of allocations from the General Fund, and formula distributions as the 2003–04 fiscal year. Existing law also requires, subject to availability of funding, the department to distribute a single lump sum of the total amount of approved funding to each county. This bill would require the state, instead of the department, to administer the fund. The bill would authorize continued financial support for mental health programs to come from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in the State Treasury, and would, commencing July 1, 2012, require the Controller to distribute to the counties all unexpended and unreserved funds on deposit in the Mental Health Services Fund monthly. Under existing law, moneys in the Mental Health Services Fund may be used only for specified purposes, including 5% for innovative programs, as specified, and 5% for administrative costs of the department, the California Mental Health Planning Council, and the commission. The bill would reduce the amount available for administrative costs to 3.5% and would make that distribution subject to appropriation each fiscal year in the annual Budget Act. The bill, for the 2011–12 fiscal year, would allocate specified funds in the Mental Health Services Fund for Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, mental health services for special education pupils, and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program. By allocating moneys in the Mental Health Services Fund for new purposes, this bill would make an appropriation. Existing law requires the department to develop regulations, which may be enacted as emergency regulations, for the department or designated local agencies to implement the act. This bill, instead, would require the state to develop regulations for the department, the commission, or designated state and local agencies to implement the act. This bill would declare that it is consistent with and furthers the purpose of the act. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. Governor Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 6, 2010. Governor Brown issued a proclamation on January 20, 2011, declaring and reaffirming that a fiscal emergency exists and stating that his proclamation supersedes the earlier proclamation for purposes of that constitutional provision. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared and reaffirmed by the Governor by proclamation issued on January 20, 2011, pursuant to the California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 5, Statutes of 2011.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 5 p.m.

  4. Urgency clause adopted. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 57. Noes 16. Page 586.).

  5. Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 585.)

  6. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after March 18 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  7. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 37. Noes 2. Page 352.).

  8. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (March 16).

  10. Re-referred to Com. on B. & F.R. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. Ordered to second reading.

  15. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  16. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 49. Noes 0. Page 416.)

  17. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  18. Without reference to committee.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee February 10.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Budget · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Budget

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

3rd Reading AB100 Committee on BUDGET (Blumenfield) By Leno Urgency Clause

Passed 37 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34201
Republican 1000
Democratic 2000
Total 37201
% of votes cast 93%5%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Runner — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
De León — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Harman — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Price — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Leno — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Hernandez — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 100 BUDGET Concurrence - Urgency Added By BLUMENFIELD

Passed 57 Yea · 16 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 0002
Unaffiliated 541604
Democratic 3000
Total 571606
% of votes cast 72%20%0%8%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Butler — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Carter — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Davis — Yea
Ma — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Williams — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Hagman — Nay
Chesbro — Yea
Halderman — Nay
Fletcher — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Cook — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Beall — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Yea
Norby — Yea
Pan — Yea
Silva — Not Voting
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Achadjian — Nay
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Logue — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nestande — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Nay
Wieckowski — Yea
Conway — Nay
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 11 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Total 11500
% of votes cast 69%31%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Hancock — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Evans — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Simitian — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Nay
La Malfa — Nay

Official roll call →

AB 100 BUDGET Assembly Third Reading By BLUMENFIELD

Passed 49 Yea · 0 Nay · 30 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 460028
Democratic 3000
Republican 0002
Total 490030
% of votes cast 62%0%0%38%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Halderman — Not Voting
Carter — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Butler — Not Voting
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Campos — Yea
Hagman — Not Voting
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Huber — Yea
Fletcher — Not Voting
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Not Voting
Cook — Not Voting
Davis — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Jeffries — Not Voting
Lara — Yea
Logue — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Nestande — Not Voting
Norby — Not Voting
Olsen — Not Voting
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Not Voting
Swanson — Not Voting
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Not Voting
Wieckowski — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Morrell — Not Voting
Achadjian — Not Voting
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Not Voting
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Silva — Not Voting
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Not Voting
Williams — Yea
Eng — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Bonnie Lowenthal — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety veterans healthcare labor
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 AB 100 do?
Existing law contains provisions governing the operation and financing of community mental health services for the mentally disordered in every county through locally administered and locally controlled community mental health programs. Existing law, the Mental Health Services Act, 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 act provides that it may be amended by the Legislature by a 23 vote of each house as long as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the intent of the act, and that the Legislature may also clarify procedures and terms of the act by majority vote. Existing law establishes the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Under existing law, the commission is required to annually review and approve county mental health programs for expenditures relating to innovative programs and prevention and early intervention programs. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Mental Health to provide technical assistance to county mental health plans, as specified. This bill would delete the requirement for these annual reviews and would authorize the commission, instead of the department, to provide technical assistance to the county mental health plans. Existing law requires each county mental health program to prepare and submit a 3-year plan to be updated at least annually and approved by the department after review and comment by the commission. This bill would delete the annual update requirement for the 3-year plans and the requirement that the plans be approved by the department after review and comment by the commission. The act establishes the Mental Health Services Fund, continuously appropriated to and administered by the department, to fund specified county mental health programs. The act prohibits funds from the Mental Health Services Fund from being used to supplant existing state or county funds utilized to provide mental health services, and requires state financial support for mental health programs with not less than the same entitlements, amounts of allocations from the General Fund, and formula distributions as the 2003–04 fiscal year. Existing law also requires, subject to availability of funding, the department to distribute a single lump sum of the total amount of approved funding to each county. This bill would require the state, instead of the department, to administer the fund. The bill would authorize continued financial support for mental health programs to come from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in the State Treasury, and would, commencing July 1, 2012, require the Controller to distribute to the counties all unexpended and unreserved funds on deposit in the Mental Health Services Fund monthly. Under existing law, moneys in the Mental Health Services Fund may be used only for specified purposes, including 5% for innovative programs, as specified, and 5% for administrative costs of the department, the California Mental Health Planning Council, and the commission. The bill would reduce the amount available for administrative costs to 3.5% and would make that distribution subject to appropriation each fiscal year in the annual Budget Act. The bill, for the 2011–12 fiscal year, would allocate specified funds in the Mental Health Services Fund for Medi-Cal specialty mental health services, mental health services for special education pupils, and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program. By allocating moneys in the Mental Health Services Fund for new purposes, this bill would make an appropriation. Existing law requires the department to develop regulations, which may be enacted as emergency regulations, for the department or designated local agencies to implement the act. This bill, instead, would require the state to develop regulations for the department, the commission, or designated state and local agencies to implement the act. This bill would declare that it is consistent with and furthers the purpose of the act. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. Governor Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 6, 2010. Governor Brown issued a proclamation on January 20, 2011, declaring and reaffirming that a fiscal emergency exists and stating that his proclamation supersedes the earlier proclamation for purposes of that constitutional provision. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared and reaffirmed by the Governor by proclamation issued on January 20, 2011, pursuant to the California Constitution. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors AB 100?
AB 100 is sponsored by Committee on Budget.
What is the current status of AB 100?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 100?
Track AB 100 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 100

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 AB 100

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →