Mobile crisis teams or units: procedures.
If enacted, AB 308 would significantly influence how counties manage mobile crisis interventions. It establishes a framework within which counties can develop specific procedures for their mobile response teams, including guidance on appropriate use-of-force measures and best practices for transporting individuals to care facilities. This could lead to a more consistent and effective framework for mobile crisis response across the state, particularly in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with autism or other developmental disabilities.
Assembly Bill 308, known as the Family Urgent Response System, is a legislative proposal that seeks to enhance the procedures and effectiveness of mobile crisis teams in California. It amends existing welfare and institutions code provisions to authorize county behavioral health directors to create specific procedures for managing emergency situations involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities and other behavioral health issues. The bill emphasizes the importance of deescalation techniques tailored to the unique circumstances of each individual, aiming to ensure their safety and well-being during crises.
The sentiment surrounding AB 308 appears to be largely supportive, as it aligns with a growing recognition of the need for specialized response systems for individuals facing behavioral health crises. Advocates for mental health services and disability rights are likely to view the bill positively, as it underscores the importance of training and preparedness for emergency responders dealing with sensitive situations. However, there may also be concerns regarding the implementation of adequate training and resources needed for law enforcement to effectively engage with these vulnerable populations.
Notable points of contention may arise around the potential pressures and expectations placed on county behavioral health directors to develop and implement these procedures effectively. Questions about funding, resource allocation, and the training quality of law enforcement personnel may also be debated, particularly in terms of ensuring that responses are equitable and sensitive to the needs of affected individuals. The need for rigorous training and the development of best practices will be crucial to address any criticisms related to the bill's efficacy and the safety of individuals in crisis situations.