Peace officers: training.
If enacted, AB 21 will necessitate changes to the training programs endorsed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). These new requirements aim to improve the readiness of law enforcement personnel in engaging with individuals who have mental health challenges, particularly age-related cognitive disorders. The bill also stipulates that peace officers appointed on or before July 1, 2029, must complete this revised training by January 1, 2030. For those appointed after this date, they will be required to complete the training within 180 days of their appointment. This move is seen as a significant step forward in addressing the complexities involved in encounters with vulnerable populations.
Assembly Bill 21, introduced by Assembly Member Gipson, focuses on the training required for peace officers in California. The bill amends existing provisions of the Penal Code to enhance behavioral health training for peace officers, specifically including how to effectively interact with individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. This addition aims to better equip officers with the knowledge and skills necessary to handle situations involving individuals with these specific cognitive impairments, thereby enhancing the overall response to mental health crises within law enforcement agencies.
While many stakeholders support the bill for its potential to improve interactions between law enforcement and individuals with cognitive challenges, there may be concerns regarding the burden of implementing such mandatory training on local agencies, especially in terms of cost and staffing. The California Constitution mandates that the state reimburse local agencies for costs incurred due to state mandates. This reimbursement will be contingent upon the Commission on State Mandates confirming that the bill incurs additional costs to local agencies. Overall, while the bill aims to foster better understanding and support for individuals facing mental health challenges, the implications for local budgets and training resources may be points of contention among legislative discussions.