Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notice To Consumers Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to advance proposed carve‑out for notice‑to‑consumers in correctional settings after split debate
Summary
The Board debated a staff‑draft legislative proposal that would allow exceptions to the required written notice of a clinician’s full name and license number for clinicians working in specified correctional and inpatient psychiatric settings. After testimony and extended debate about safety versus transparency, the board did not move the draft forward.
The California Board of Behavioral Sciences discussed a staff‑draft legislative proposal on Feb. 20 that would, in narrowly defined settings, allow employers to withhold a clinician’s full name and license number from written “notice to consumers” if the employer provides an alternate complaint process and the licensee verifies that process is in place.
Policy counsel Roseanne Helms summarized the background: SB 1024 (enacted January 2025) requires licensees to provide license and registration information to clients at the onset of psychotherapy. Staff reported receiving concerns from clinicians who provide care to incarcerated individuals that written disclosure of a full legal name and license number could create safety risks for clinicians and their families.
Helms said California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) told staff that within CDCR facilities providers commonly identify themselves verbally by last name and title to minimize harassment or retaliation, and that grievance and internal complaint mechanisms exist that can allow incarcerated people to raise complaints without full online disclosure of provider identity. “They confirmed that historically mental health providers in CDCR facilities typically identify themselves verbally using their last name and professional titles, for example, Mrs. Jones LCSW,” Helms said.
Board members were divided. Member Heft warned against loosening transparency for vulnerable patients, citing research and state audit findings he said suggest inmate grievance processes have significant shortcomings: “I would not feel comfortable granting exceptions to organizations that have revealed themselves to be untrustworthy,” he said. Other members recounted safety concerns for clinicians in high‑security settings and expressed support for a narrowly tailored exception if it included procedural safeguards.
After lengthy discussion and public comments, the board took no action to advance the draft statutory amendment. Staff told the board that not advancing the language would leave current law unchanged and that outside entities (including CDCR or employee unions) could propose legislation if they chose.
What happens next: staff will not file the board‑sponsored amendment at this time; the board asked staff to retain the record of comments and noted stakeholders may bring alternative proposals for the board to consider in future sessions.
