California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB43

Introduced
12/3/18  
Introduced
12/3/18  
Refer
3/25/19  
Report Pass
3/25/19  
Report Pass
3/25/19  
Refer
3/26/19  
Refer
3/26/19  
Report Pass
4/24/19  
Report Pass
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Refer
4/24/19  
Refer
5/8/19  
Refer
5/8/19  
Report Pass
5/16/19  
Engrossed
5/23/19  
Engrossed
5/23/19  
Refer
5/24/19  
Refer
6/6/19  
Report Pass
6/20/19  
Report Pass
6/20/19  
Refer
6/24/19  
Refer
6/24/19  
Refer
7/8/19  

Caption

Mental health.

Impact

If enacted, AB43 will require county behavioral health directors to certify that community planning processes are engaged rigorously and inclusively, ensuring that stakeholders have a voice in mental health policy and program planning. The bill also enforces compliance with open meeting laws, mandating public engagement and transparency in the planning processes. This change aims to enhance collaboration among various stakeholders, including families, service providers, and law enforcement agencies, thereby improving mental health services across communities.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 43, introduced by Assembly Member Gloria, aims to amend various sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code concerning mental health services. The bill underscores the principles outlined in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which funds county mental health programs through the continuously appropriated Mental Health Services Fund. Specifically, AB43 expands oversight and accountability measures related to county mental health plans, emphasizing the need for rigorous community planning processes and meaningful stakeholder involvement throughout all stages of program development and implementation.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment surrounding AB43 appears positive among mental health advocates and service providers who argue that stronger community engagement will result in better-tailored mental health services. However, there may be concerns regarding the administrative burden placed on county agencies to meet the new requirements. Opponents could express fear that increased regulation may lead to delays in service implementation due to bureaucratic hurdles.

Contention

One notable point of contention involves the responsibility placed on the county behavioral health director to certify compliance with the new planning and stakeholder involvement requirements. Critics may argue that imposing additional duties could strain resources already under pressure, especially in financially constrained counties. Advocates for the bill counter that these measures are essential to ensure adequate service delivery and accountability in the treatment of mental health issues within the community.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB1636

Mental health services.

CA AB283

Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission.

CA SB326

The Behavioral Health Services Act.

CA AB2411

Local Youth Mental Health Boards.

CA AB289

Mental health services: representation.

CA AB845

Behavioral health: older adults.

CA SB551

Beverage containers: recycling.

CA AB2119

Mental health.

CA AB1282

Mental health: impacts of social media.

CA AB1671

Pupil mental health: services.

Similar Bills

CA AB2287

Mental Health Services Act: transparency and accountability.

CA SB326

The Behavioral Health Services Act.

CA SB862

Health.

CA AB488

Mental Health Services Act.

CA SB970

Mental Health Services Act.

CA SB551

Beverage containers: recycling.

CA SB79

Mental health.

CA AB79

Human services omnibus.