Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Care Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Care Court expansion bill advances after contested hearing
Summary
The Assembly Health Committee advanced SB 989, which would let first responders request county behavioral health agencies to review and file Care Court petitions; supporters said it will reduce barriers to care, while Disability Rights California and ACLU argued the program is unproven, coercive, and costly.
SB 989, a bill to expand access to California's Care Court process by creating a streamlined referral pathway for first responders, was advanced by the Assembly Health Committee after a contested hearing on June 16.
The bill’s author argued the measure would reduce administrative barriers that keep people with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders from entering Care Court. “SB 989 creates a more practical and effective pathway by allowing first responders to request that county behavioral health agencies review and file care petitions on their behalf,” the author said (Author (SB989)). The measure requires counties to assess those requests within 30 business days and directs the Department of Health Care Services to develop a standardized referral form and data reporting rules.
Megan Soopers, speaking for the California Professional Firefighters, said firefighters often encounter the same individuals repeatedly and lack the resources to complete the current petition process. “We see Care as another tool for firefighters and other first responders to try to help make these connections to that deeper level of care,” Soopers said (Megan Soopers).
Disability Rights California raised sharp opposition on procedural and effectiveness grounds. Evan Fearn said Care Court “is an unproven, costly, and coercive program” and cited the first annual Care Court report showing substantial gaps in ordered services and high rates of subsequent criminal‑justice contact. Fearn told the committee the program costs cited in a legislative report reached $713,000 per participant in fiscal year 2023–24 and said those figures raised concerns about scaling the program (Evan Fearn).
Committee members discussed technical amendments and implementation risks, including the need for clearer procedures and better data to track outcomes. The chair said the committee would consider the printed committee amendments and noted staff follow‑up on implementation questions. The committee moved the bill as amended for further consideration.
The hearing record shows robust public testimony from family members and several patient‑advocacy groups supporting SB 989, and civil‑rights and disability‑rights groups opposing it; committee members emphasized a need for closer monitoring of implementation as the measure advances.
