Committee advances SB 27 to clarify Care Court eligibility after hours of testimony

The committee advanced Senate Bill 27, a cleanup and clarification measure for California's Care Court program, after more than an hour of testimony from mental-health clinicians, county behavioral-health directors and disability-advocacy groups.

SB 27, introduced by Senator Umberg, would clarify the Care Act/Care Court eligibility standards — notably by defining “clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment” — allow certain misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial to be considered for a care referral, permit data sharing among licensed care partners and broaden eligibility language to include people with mood disorders with psychotic features. The bill was moved out of committee to the Health Committee.

Supporters said the changes are intended to reduce dismissals of care petitions that arise when courts and advocates disagree about whether a person is truly stabilized in community treatment. Dr. Aaron Meyer, introduced himself as a practicing psychiatrist and contracted behavioral health officer for the City of San Diego and called the lack of a definition a practical problem: “Stability in an ACT program must be questioned when someone is calling 911 more than 20 times in a month, even after enrollment,” Meyer testified, and said SB 27’s clarifying language would help courts identify people “who are stable and not deteriorating, likely to survive safely in the community without supervision, managing symptoms through medication or other therapeutic interventions.”

Local officials and county behavioral-health directors said their members implemented Care Court across all 58 counties and welcome the program’s accountability goals but warned the committee that expanding eligibility to certain mood disorders could multiply the number of eligible people far beyond current capacity. Michelle Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, told the committee that prevalence estimates for mood disorders mean the proposed expansion could encompass an order-of-magnitude larger population than the program was designed to serve and that counties currently lack housing and staff to serve an expanded caseload.

Disability-rights and peer-run organizations offered pointed opposition. Eric Harris of Disability Rights California said the bill would expand Care Court beyond what advocates were promised when the program was first advanced and that the outreach data so far show very small program uptake; Harris said the state had spent roughly $70 million but that only about 100 people had completed the full process to date. Disability Rights California and other community groups urged the committee to prioritize services and housing rather than expand court-ordered interventions.

Author Senator Umberg replied that the bill aims to make the pathway available to those with psychotic episodes and to streamline hearings so courts can hold systems accountable without requiring unnecessary court appearances. Multiple legislators urged the author to work with Health and Public Safety committees on standards and resources: Assemblymember Zuber said she would support the bill but expressed concern about the mood-disorder expansion and asked the author to consult the Health Committee’s clinical experts.

After discussion, the committee adopted a motion to pass SB 27 on to the Health Committee (motion carried; recorded on the committee roll as passed). The committee debate made repeated reference to the lack of housing and behavioral-health capacity statewide and to the need to balance individual liberties, access to care and system accountability.

Votes at the time the motion passed were recorded by roll call; the committee clerk announced the motion passed to the Health Committee and the motion was placed on call for further scheduling. The author and multiple stakeholders agreed to continuing negotiations on eligibility limits, definitions and resource questions.

Ending: SB 27 will next be considered in the Health Committee; the author and stakeholders said they will continue to work on technical fixes, eligibility guardrails and resource questions before the next hearing.