The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 19905) is added to Chapter 11 of Part 11 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, to read:
Article  1.5. 3D Printer Use
19905.
(a) Every public library that provides public access to a 3D printer shall post a notice prepared pursuant to subdivision (b) on or near the 3D printer.
(b) (1) The Department of Justice shall prepare and distribute to a public library that provides public access to a 3D printer a notice that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer. The notice shall do all of the following:
(A) Provide citations to the applicable state and federal laws that may impose civil liability or criminal penalties for misuse of a 3D printer, including laws regarding copyright infringement and trademark and patent protection.
(B) Describe the potential damages for liability and criminal penalties that may apply for a violation of these laws.
(C) Alert users of the 3D printer that it is the responsibility of the user to be aware of and abide by the laws that may apply to the use of a 3D printer.
(2) The notice shall appear in 14-point type and not exceed two 8 inch by 11.5 inch pages in length.
(3) The Department of Justice shall annually review and revise the notice to reflect updates to the applicable laws.
(4) For purposes of this section, a “3D printer” means a machine or other device that manufactures or produces solid objects by depositing layers of material, including, but not limited to, plastic, pursuant to instructions that are stored and displayed in an electronic format as a digital model.
SEC. 2.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1.
Section 6254.31 is added to the
Government Code
, to read:
6254.31.
(a)Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system pursuant to Title 14 (commencing with Section 14350) of Part 4 of the Penal Code, or any related record, including, but not limited to, usage logs or logs that identify any person or entity that subsequently obtains or requests records of that system, are public records subject to disclosure.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), nothing in this chapter or any other law requires the disclosure of images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system, or any related record, including, but not limited to, usage logs or logs that identify any person or entity that subsequently obtains or requests records of that system, to the extent that disclosure of the images, footage, data, or records would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation.
SEC. 2.
Title 14 (commencing with Section 14350) is added to Part 4 of the
Penal Code
, to read:
14.
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
14350.
(a)A public agency shall not use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, except as provided in this title. This title shall apply to all public and private entities when contracting with a public agency for the use of an unmanned aircraft system.
(b)A law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system if it has obtained a warrant based on probable cause pursuant to this code.
(c)A law enforcement agency, without obtaining a warrant, may use an unmanned aircraft system in all of the following circumstances:
(1)In emergency situations if there is an imminent threat to life or of great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, fires, hostage crises, “hot pursuit” situations if reasonably necessary to prevent harm to law enforcement officers or others, and search and rescue operations on land or water.
(2)To assess the necessity of first responders in situations relating to traffic accidents.
(3)(A)To inspect state parks and wilderness areas for illegal vegetation or fires.
(B)For purposes of this paragraph, “wilderness areas” means public lands without permanent improvements or human habitation.
(4)To determine the appropriate response to an imminent or existing environmental emergency or disaster, including, but not limited to, oils spills or chemical spills.
(d)A public agency other than a law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, to achieve the core mission of the agency provided that the purpose is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.
(e)A public agency that is not primarily a law enforcement agency, but that employs peace officers or performs functions related to criminal investigations, may use an unmanned aircraft system without obtaining a warrant to achieve the core mission of the agency provided that the purpose is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence, and that the images, footage, or data are not used for any purpose other than that for which it was collected.
14351.
A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.
14352.
(a)(1)(A)Except as permitted by this title, images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency, or any entity contracting with a public agency, pursuant to this title shall not be disseminated to a law enforcement agency unless the law enforcement agency has obtained a warrant for the images, footage, or data based on probable cause pursuant to this code, or the law enforcement agency would not have been required to obtain a warrant to collect the images, footage, or data itself, as specified in Section 14350.
(B)A public agency that is not primarily a law enforcement agency, but that employs peace officers or performs functions related to criminal investigations, may disseminate images, footage, or data collected pursuant to Section 14350 if the dissemination is to others within that agency.
(2)Except as permitted by this title, images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency, or any entity contracting with a public agency, through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall not be disseminated outside the collecting public agency, unless one of the following circumstances applies:
(A)Images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system may be disseminated to another public agency that is not a law enforcement agency if the images, footage, or data are related to the core mission of both public agencies involved in the sending or receiving of the images, footage, or data.
(B)Images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system may be disseminated outside the collecting public agency if the images, footage, or data are evidence in any claim filed or any pending litigation.
(C)Images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system may be disseminated to a private entity if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i)The collecting public agency is not a law enforcement agency.
(ii)The images, footage, or data are related to the core function of the collecting public agency.
(3)A public agency may make available to the public images, footage, or data obtained by the public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)The images, footage, or data do not depict or describe any individual or group of individuals, or the activities of any individual or group of individuals whose identity or identities can be ascertained.
(B)The disclosure of the images, footage, or data is required to fulfill the public agency’s statutory or mandatory obligations.
(b)Except as permitted by this title, images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall not be used by the public agency for any purpose other than that for which it was collected.
(c)(1)Images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall be permanently destroyed within one year, except that a public agency may retain the images, footage, or data in all of the following circumstances:
(A)For training purposes. Images, footage, or data retained for training purposes shall be used only for the education and instruction of a public agency’s employees in matters related to the mission of the public agency and for no other purpose.
(B)For academic research or teaching purposes. Images, footage, or data retained for academic research or teaching purposes shall be used only for the advancement of research and teaching conducted by an academic or research institution and matters related to the mission of the institution and for no other purpose.
(C)For purposes of monitoring material assets owned by the public agency.
(D)For environmental, public works, or land use management or planning by the public agency.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public agency may retain beyond one year images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system in both of the following circumstances:
(A)If a warrant authorized the collection of the images, footage, or data.
(B)If the images, footage, or data are evidence in any claim filed or any pending litigation or enforcement proceeding.
14353.
Unless authorized by federal law, a person or entity, including a public agency subject to Section 14350 or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, shall not equip or arm an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or launched from an unmanned aircraft system and that is intended to cause bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property.
14354.
All unmanned aircraft systems shall be operated so as to minimize the collection of images, footage, or data of persons, places, or things not specified with particularity in the warrant authorizing the use of an unmanned aircraft system, or, if no warrant was obtained, for purposes unrelated to the justification for the operation.
14355.
(a)This title is not intended to conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b)A local legislative body may adopt more restrictive policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned aircraft systems.
14356.
For the purposes of this title, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)“Criminal intelligence” means information compiled, analyzed, or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, monitor, or investigate criminal activity.
(b)“Law enforcement agency” means the Attorney General of the State of California, each district attorney, and each agency of the State of California authorized by statute to investigate or prosecute law violators.
(c)“Public agency” means and includes each state agency and each local agency.
(d) “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
14357.
Except as provided in this title, the surveillance restrictions on electronic devices described in Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 630) of Title 15 of Part 1 shall apply to the use or operation of an unmanned aircraft system by a public agency.
SEC. 3.
The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 6254.31 of the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
In order to ensure the safety of persons involved in investigations and to preserve the integrity of those investigations, it is necessary that this act take effect.

Summary: Existing law generally provides for the establishment of public libraries. Existing law requires every public library that receives specified state funds and that provides public access to the Internet or to video recordings to, by a majority vote of the governing board, adopt a policy regarding access by minors to the Internet or to video recordings. This bill would require every public library that provides public access to a 3D printer, as defined, to post a notice on or near the 3D printer that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer, as specified. This bill would require the Department of Justice to draft and distribute this notice, as specified, and annually review and revise the notice for accuracy. By imposing additional duties upon local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015. This bill would generally prohibit public agencies from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, as defined, with certain exceptions applicable to law enforcement agencies and in certain other cases, including when the use or operation of the unmanned aircraft system achieves the core mission of the agency and the purpose is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence, as defined. The bill would require reasonable public notice to be provided by public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft systems, as specified. The bill would require images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under these provisions to be permanently destroyed within one year, except as specified. The bill would generally prohibit images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under these provisions from being disseminated outside the collecting public agency, except as specified. Unless authorized by federal law, the bill would prohibit a person or entity, including a public agency subject to these provisions, or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, from equipping or arming an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or launched from an unmanned aircraft system and that is intended to cause bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property. The bill would also provide that specified surveillance restrictions on electronic devices apply to the use or operation of an unmanned aircraft system by a public agency. The bill would apply its provisions to all public and private entities when contracting with a public agency for the use of an unmanned aircraft system. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. This bill would make certain images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under its provisions, or any related record, including, but not limited to, usage logs or logs that identify any person or entity that subsequently obtains or requests records of that system, subject to disclosure. The bill would except from disclosure above images, footage, data, and records obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system, if disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

An act to add
Section 6254.31 to the Government Code, and to add Title 14 (commencing with Section 14350) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to unmanned aircraft systems.
Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 19905) to Chapter 11 of Part 11 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, relating to libraries.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) There are approximately 1.2 million adult Californians who suffer from severe mental illness and over 700,000 children in California who deal with severe emotional disturbance.
(2) Despite the importance of and emphasis on mental health parity, management of mental illness within a system of care is far more difficult than most types of physical illness. There are significant differences between the delivery systems for the Medi-Cal population and the delivery systems for those covered by private insurance, and there are unique problems associated with each system. While changes are needed in both, there is an immediate need to look for ways to better serve the insured population.
(3) The limited number of providers, the lack of facilities for treatment, and the difficulties of arranging for and coordinating ancillary services have made it extremely difficult for health insurers to meet the needs of enrollees facing significant mental health issues.
(4) Attempts to develop truly accessible provider networks that can link with the array of administrative and ancillary services that the mentally ill need to manage their disease and to improve will take an investment of time and resources.
(5) Systems of care known as Early Diagnosis and Preventive Treatment (EDAPT) programs may hold the key to these problems. These integrated systems of care provide early intervention, assessment, diagnosis, a treatment plan, and the services necessary to implement that plan. EDAPT programs have interdisciplinary teams of physicians, clinicians, advocates, and staff that coordinate care on an outpatient basis.
(6) EDAPT programs do not yet exist in sufficient numbers to allow them to meet the provider network requirements health insurers must meet. While it is possible under existing law for health insurers to contract with existing EDAPT programs, there are a number of regulatory and practical issues that stand in the way of directing patients to them so that the patients’ conditions can be effectively managed. If insurers could designate an EDAPT program as an exclusive provider for their enrollees, an assessment could be made of the overall efficacy of the model.
(b) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to provide funding to augment private health benefit plan coverage in order to provide patients with the full range of necessary EDAPT services.
SEC. 2.
Part 6 (commencing with Section 5950) is added to Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
PART 6. EDAPT Funding Pilot Program
5950.
(a) There is hereby established the Early Diagnosis and Preventive Treatment (EDAPT) Program Fund within the State Treasury. Moneys from private or other sources may be deposited into the fund and used for purposes of this part. General Fund moneys shall not be deposited into the fund.
(b) When the Department of Finance has determined that the total amount of the moneys in the fund established pursuant to subdivision (a) has reached or exceeded one million two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000), the Controller shall distribute all of the moneys in the fund to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of providing reimbursement to an EDAPT program for services provided to persons who are referred to that program, but whose private health benefit plan does not cover the full range of required services.
(c) Funds distributed pursuant to this part shall not be used to pay for services normally covered by the patient’s private health benefit plan and shall only be used to augment private health benefit plan coverage to provide the patient with the full range of necessary services.
(d) For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “EDAPT program” means an Early Diagnosis and Preventive Treatment program and refers to a program that utilizes integrated systems of care to provide early intervention, assessment, diagnosis, a treatment plan, and necessary services for individuals with severe mental illness and children with severe emotional disturbance using an interdisciplinary team of physicians, clinicians, advocates, and staff who coordinate care on an outpatient basis.
(2) “Private health benefit plan” means a program or entity that provides, arranges, pays for, or reimburses the cost of health benefits, but does not include coverage provided through the Medi-Cal system.
5951.
(a) If the Regents of the University of California accept moneys from the fund established pursuant to this part, or accept federal funds distributed by the State Department of Health Care Services as described in subdivision (b), the regents shall report, on or after January 1, 2022, but prior to January 1, 2023, to the health committees of both houses of the Legislature all of the following:
(1) Evidence as to whether the early psychosis approach reduces the duration of untreated psychosis, reduces the severity of symptoms, improves relapse rates, decreases the use of inpatient care in comparison to standard care, supports educational and career progress, and reduces the cost of treatment in comparison to standard treatment methodologies.
(2) The number of patients with private health benefit plans served by an EDAPT program in the 12 months prior to the implementation of this part.
(3) The number of patients with private health benefit plans served by an EDAPT program that has received funding pursuant to this part.
(4) The number of patients participating in an EDAPT program that has received funding pursuant to this part who are considered stabilized, as a percentage of patients served.
(5) The number of patients participating in an EDAPT program that has received funding pursuant to this part who need services beyond those provided in the program and the nature of those services.
(6) Any other information the regents deem necessary.
(b) If the State Department of Health Care Services distributes federal funds to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of supporting an EDAPT program, the regents shall issue the report described in subdivision (a), to the extent permitted by federal law.
(c) A report to be submitted pursuant to this section shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
5952.
This part shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2023, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2023, deletes or extends that date.

Summary: Existing law, the Bronzan-McCorquodale Act, sets out a system of community mental health care services provided by counties and administered by the State Department of Health Care Services. This bill would establish the Early Diagnosis and Preventive Treatment (EDAPT) Program Fund in the State Treasury to provide funding to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of providing reimbursement to an EDAPT program that would utilize integrated systems of care to provide early intervention, assessment, diagnosis, a treatment plan, and necessary services for individuals with severe mental illness and children with severe emotional disturbance, as specified. The bill would authorize moneys from private or other sources to be deposited into the fund and used for purposes of the bill. The bill would require, when the Department of Finance has determined that the total amount of the moneys in the fund has reached or exceeded $1,200,000, the Controller to distribute all of the moneys in the fund to the Regents of the University of California for the purpose of providing reimbursement to an EDAPT program for services provided to persons who are referred to that program, but whose private health benefit plan, as defined, does not cover the full range of required services, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require the Regents of the University of California, if the regents accept the money, or if the regents accept federal funding distributed by the State Department of Health Care Services for the purpose of supporting an EDAPT program, as specified, to report, on or after January 1, 2022, but prior to January 1, 2023, specified information to the health committees of both houses of the Legislature. The bill would repeal the program as of January 1, 2023.

An act to add and repeal Part 6 (commencing with Section 5950) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to mental health, and making an appropriation therefor.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Section 15601 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15601.
(a) The Secretary of State, within the Secretary of State’s existing budget, shall adopt regulations no later than January 1, 2008, for each voting system approved for use in the state and specify the procedures for recounting ballots, including vote by mail and provisional ballots, using those voting systems.
(b) No later than January 1, 2018, the Secretary of State shall revise and adopt regulations specifying procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount pursuant to this chapter.
SEC. 2.
Section 15620 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15620.
(a) Following completion of the official canvass and again following completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to Section 15560, any voter may, within five days thereafter, file with the elections official responsible for conducting an election in the county wherein the recount is sought a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office, for slates of presidential electors, or for or against any measure, provided the office, slate, or measure is not voted on statewide. The request shall specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed.
(b) If an election is conducted in more than one county, the request for the recount may be filed by any voter within five days, beginning on the 31st day after the election, with the elections official of, and the recount may be conducted within, any or all of the affected counties.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “completion of the canvass” shall be presumed to be that time when the elections official signs the certified statement of the results of the election except that, in the case of a city election, if a city council canvasses the returns itself and does not order the elections official to conduct the canvass, “completion of the canvass” shall be presumed to be that time when the governing body declares the persons elected or the measures approved or defeated.
SEC. 3.
Section 15621 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15621.
(a) Following completion of the official canvass any voter may, within five days beginning on the 31st day after a statewide election, file with the Secretary of State a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Additionally, any voter may file with the Secretary of State a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide within five days following completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to Section 15560. A request filed pursuant to this section shall specify in which county or counties the recount is sought and shall specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed.
(b) The Secretary of State shall forthwith send by registered mail one copy of the request to the elections official of each county in which a recount of the votes is sought.
(c) All the other provisions of this article shall apply to recounts conducted under this section.
SEC. 4.
Section 15621.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
15621.5.
If more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure pursuant to Section 15620 or 15621, and at least one request is for a manual recount, the county elections official of a county subject to multiple requests as described in this section shall conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.
SEC. 5.
Section 15626 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15626.
The recount shall be commenced not more than seven days following the receipt by the elections official of the request or order for the recount under Section 15620, 15621, or 15645 and shall be continued daily, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed. The recount shall not be commenced until the first day following notification of the individuals specified in Section 15628.
SEC. 6.
Section 15627 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15627.
(a) If the votes subject to recount were cast or tabulated by a voting system, the voter requesting the recount shall, for each set of ballots cast or tabulated by a type of voting system, select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Only one method of recount may be used for all ballots cast or tabulated by the same type of voting system.
(b) For purposes of direct recording electronic voting systems, “conducted manually” means that the voter verified paper audit trail of the electronically recorded vote is counted manually, as selected by the voter who requests the recount.
SEC. 7.
Section 15632 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
15632.
In lieu of the returns as reported in the official canvass, upon completion of the recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, there shall be entered the result of the recount in each precinct affected, which result shall, for all purposes thereafter, be the official returns of those precincts for the office, slates of presidential electors, or measure involved in the recount. If the office, slates of presidential electors, or measure are not voted on statewide, the results of any recount which is not completed by counting the votes in each and every precinct in the jurisdiction within which votes were cast on the candidates for the office, on the slates of electors, or on the measure in question shall be declared null and void. If the office, slates of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void where there is not recounted each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure.
SEC. 8.
Article 5 (commencing with Section 15645) is added to Chapter 9 of Division 15 of the Elections Code, to read:
Article  5. State-Funded Recounts
15645.
(a) (1) Within five days after the Secretary of State files a statement of the vote, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 15501, the Governor may order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if any of the following occurs, except as provided in paragraph (3):
(A) The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office except as provided in paragraph (2).
(B) The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office.
(C) The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast on the measure.
(2) The Governor shall not order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction pursuant to this section unless the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows either of the following:
(A) The number of votes received by the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was either of the following:
(i) Between 0.49985 and 0.50015, inclusive, of the number of all votes cast.
(ii) Within 1,000 votes of 50 percent of the number of all votes cast.
(B) No candidate for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction received votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office and the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for that office was less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office.
(3) If the conditions set forth in paragraph (1) are satisfied with respect to the number of votes cast for the office of Governor, the Secretary of State, but not the Governor, may order a state-funded manual recount pursuant to this section.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, “statewide office” means the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, or Member of the United States Senate.
(b) If a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to this section, no other recount shall be conducted.
(c) The State shall reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount pursuant to this section in an expeditious manner upon certification of those costs.
15646.
(a) Upon the Governor or Secretary of State ordering a recount pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15645, the Secretary of State shall notify the elections official of each county and shall direct the county elections officials to recount all the votes cast for the office or for and against the state ballot measure.
(b) (1) While conducting a recount pursuant to Section 15645, a county elections official shall also review ballots rejected pursuant to Section 15154 to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass.
(2) The process of reviewing rejected ballots pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be open to members of the public, including persons associated with a campaign or measure.
(c)  The elections official in each county shall complete a recount pursuant to this section as follows:
(1) In a primary election, by three business days before the Secretary of State issues the certified list of candidates for the associated general election pursuant to Section 8120.
(2) In a general election, within 60 days of the Governor or Secretary of State ordering the recount.
15647.
All the provisions of Article 3 (commencing with Section 15620), except Sections 15620, 15621, 15622, 15623, 15624, and 15627, shall apply to this article unless otherwise provided herein.
15648.
The Secretary of State may adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations necessary for the administration of this article.
15649.
A county elections official shall only be required to conduct a recount pursuant to this article to the extent funds are appropriated for purposes of this article in the annual Budget Act or other statute.
SEC. 9.
Section 19204.5 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
19204.5.
(a) The Secretary of State shall not certify or conditionally approve a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
(b) (1) For purposes of this subdivision, a voting system that is “noncompliant” is a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Secretary of State may, until January 1, 2021, approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system will remain noncompliant after the change or modification. This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2021.
SEC. 10.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Summary: Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots. This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount. Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election. This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election. Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both. This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control. Under existing law, a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. This bill would permit the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted. This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted. Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities. This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit. However, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification. By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

An act to amend Sections 15601, 15620, 15621, 15626, 15627, and 15632, of, to add Sections 15621.5 and 19204.5 to, and to add Article 5 (commencing with Section 15645) to Chapter 9 of Division 15 of, the Elections Code, relating to elections.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)  In 1977, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that feeding livestock low doses of antibiotics from antibiotic classes that are used in human disease treatment could promote the development of antibiotic-resistance in bacteria and pose a risk to human health. The FDA, however, did not act in response to these findings, despite laws requiring the agency to do so.
(b)  The FDA issued voluntary guidance in December 2013 on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics; however, this guidance is unlikely to significantly reduce the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock because of a broad exemption allowing for the use of antibiotics for disease prevention.
(c)  Not only do antibiotic-resistant bacteria affect the health of our society, but they also have a monetary impact. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences noted that antibiotic-resistant bacteria generate a minimum of four to five billion dollars in costs to United States society and individuals every year. In 2009, in a study funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cook County Hospital and Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics estimated that the total health care cost of antibiotic-resistant infections in the United States was between $16.6 billion and $26 billion annually. Societal costs from lost productivity due to illnesses were estimated to be an additional $35 billion.
(d)  In April 1999, the United States Government Accountability Office conducted a study concluding that three strains of microorganisms that cause foodborne illnesses or disease in humans are resistant to antibiotics and are linked to the use of antibiotics in animals. These microorganisms that cause foodborne illnesses or disease in humans are resistant to antibiotics and are linked to the use of antibiotics in animals. These microorganisms are salmonella, campylobacter, and E. Coli.
(e)  In 1999, 2006, and 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conducted large-scale, voluntary surveys that revealed all of the following:
(1)  Eighty-four percent of grower and finisher swine farms, 83 percent of cattle feedlots, and 84 percent of sheep farms administer antimicrobials in feed or water for either health or growth promotion reasons.
(2)  Many of the antimicrobials that were identified were identical or closely related to drugs used in human medicine, including tetracyclines, macrolides, bactricin, penicilllins, and sulfonamides.
(3)  These drugs are used in people to treat serious diseases, such as pneumonia, scarlet fever, rheumatic fever, sexually transmitted infections, and skin infections; pandemics such as malaria and plague; and bioterrorism agents such as anthrax.
(f) In June 2002, the peer-reviewed journal, “Clinical Infectious Diseases,” published a report based on a two-year review, by experts in human and veterinary medicine, public health, microbiology, biostatistics, and risk analysis, of more than 500 scientific studies on the human health impacts of antimicrobial use in agriculture. The report recommended that antimicrobial agents should not be used in agriculture in the absence of disease and should be limited to therapy for diseased individual animals or prophylaxis when disease is documented in a herd or flock.
(g) In a March 2003 report, the National Academy of Sciences stated that a decrease in antimicrobial use in human medicine alone will have little effect on the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria and that substantial efforts must be made to decrease the inappropriate overuse of antimicrobials in animals and agriculture.
(h) In 2010, the peer-reviewed journal, “Molecular Cell,” published a study demonstrating that a low-dosage use of antibiotics causes a dramatic increase in genetic mutation, raising new concerns about the agricultural practice of using low-dosage antibiotics in order to stimulate growth promotion and routinely prevent disease in unhealthy conditions.
(i) In 2010, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration testified that the Danish ban of the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food animal production resulted in a marked reduction in antimicrobial resistance in multiple bacterial species, including Campylobacter and Enterococci.
(j) In 2011, the FDA found that in 2010:
(1) Thirteen million five hundred thousand kilograms of antibacterial drugs were sold for use on food animals in the United States.
(2) Three million three hundred thousand kilograms of antibacterial drugs were used for human health.
(3) Eighty percent of antibacterial drugs, and over 70 percent of medically important antibacterial drugs, disseminated in the United States were sold for use on food-producing animals, rather than being used for human health.
(k) In 2011, a review of all scientific studies on antimicrobial use in farm animals, published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, found the following:
(1) That the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals leads to the development of reservoirs of antibiotic resistance, that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can spread through food, water, air, soil, and meat-industry workers, and that bacteria can share resistance genes with each other.
(2) A ban on nontherapeutic antibiotic use in food-producing animals would preserve the use of antibiotics for medicine.
(3) A Danish ban on nontherapeutic antibiotics in food-producing animals resulted in little change in animal morbidity and mortality, and only a modest increase in production cost.
(l) The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded in a recent report, “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013,” that overuse or misuse of antibiotics contributes to the spread of antibiotic resistance, whether in human medicine or in agriculture. The CDC estimated that antibiotic resistance causes at least 23,000 deaths and two million illnesses every year.
(m) In 2013, the peer-reviewed journal, “The Journal of the American Medical Association,” published a study showing higher levels of antibiotic-resistant skin and soft-tissue infections in people living in proximity to hog farms or fields treated with swine manure in Pennsylvania. Similarly, in 2014, the peer-reviewed journal, “Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology,” published a study focused on hospitalized veterans in rural areas of Iowa, finding that people living in close proximity to a swine-feeding operation were nearly three times as likely to have been affected by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at the time of admission to the hospital.
(n) The FDA’s National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System routinely finds that retail meat products are contaminated with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics that are important to human medicine.
(o) According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “the largest nonhuman use of antimicrobial agents is in food-producing animal production, and most of this is in healthy animals to increase growth or prevent diseases. Evidence now exists that these uses of antimicrobial agents in food-producing animals have a direct negative impact on human health and multiple impacts on the selection and dissemination of resistance genes in animals and the environment. Children are at increased risk of acquiring many of these infections with resistant bacteria and are at great risk of severe complications if they become infected.”
(p) Many scientific studies confirm that the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in food-producing animals contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in people.
(q) The spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria poses a risk to the health of Californians and reduced use of antibiotics for livestock production is likely to reduce the risks of the rise and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through food and other pathways, thus reducing the risk to Californians.
SEC. 2.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would address the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.

Summary: Under existing law, the Department of Food and Agriculture is responsible for enforcing provisions relating to the importation of animals, milk and milk products, produce dealers, and other agricultural regulations. Existing law requires the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to make and enforce provisions relating to the manufacture, sale, and use of livestock drugs. This bill would make various legislative findings and declarations relating to the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock, and would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would address the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production.

An act relating to livestock drugs.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) According to United States Census Bureau, California has a poverty rate of 23.5 percent, the highest rate of any state in the country.
(b) Children born into poverty are at higher risk of health and developmental disparities, including, but not limited to, premature birth, low birth weight, infant mortality, crime, domestic violence, developmental delays, dropping out of high school, substance abuse, unemployment, and child abuse and neglect.
(c) In 2014, the Legislature passed Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 155 by Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra, recognizing that research over the last two decades in the evolving fields of neuroscience, molecular biology, public health, genomics, and epigenetics reveals that experiences in the first few years of life build changes into the biology of the human body that, in turn, influence the person’s physical and mental health over his or her lifetime.
(d) On May 3, 2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-19-12, establishing the “Let’s Get Healthy California Task Force” to develop a 10-year plan for improving the health of Californians, controlling health care costs, promoting personal responsibility for individual health, and advancing health equity.
(e) The task force identified several priorities, including a subset for “Healthy Beginnings,” which include reducing infant deaths, increasing vaccination rates, reducing childhood trauma, and reducing adolescent tobacco use.
(f) The final report of the task force states, “the challenge going forward is to identify evidence-based interventions and quicken the pace of uptake across the state” in order to meet the ambitious goals in the Governor’s directive.
(g) Voluntary evidence-based home visiting programs, such as Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start (Home-Based Program Option), Parents as Teachers, and Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters, strengthen the critical parent-child relationship and connect families with information and resources during the pivotal time from pregnancy to five years of age. Extensive research has shown that evidence-based home visiting programs serving pregnant and parenting mothers, prenatal to the child turning five years of age, increase family self-sufficiency, positive parenting practices, child literacy and school readiness, and maternal and child health.
(h) Voluntary evidence-based home visiting program models focused on the prenatal period to five years of age range from low to high intensity, reflecting the broad spectrum of family needs that home visiting can impact. Many experts hail home visiting program diversity as essential to providing parents with choices and ensuring that programs are well matched with local needs and strengths, as well as responsive to the diverse needs of California’s children and families.
(i) In 2013, more than 248,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries gave birth to a child. Because Medi-Cal covers half of all births in the state, this has increased costs for taxpayers. Medi-Cal expansion has resulted in an 18 percent increase in Medi-Cal enrollment to a total of 11.3 million, and enrollment is expected to exceed 12 million in 2015.
(j) The California Health and Human Services Agency recently submitted its State Health Care Innovation Plan, including the Maternity Care initiative, which addresses issues of high costs in maternity care, to the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Child deliveries and related expenses, including high-risk births, rank among the top 10 high-cost episodes of health care, and in the last 15 years, California has seen a continual rise in maternal mortality.
(k) The cost of health care specifically related to high-risk pregnancies, neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) services, toxic stress, and emergency room visits has increased and is projected to continue to rise. Average health care costs for women were 25 percent more than men primarily due to higher costs of health care during childbearing years.
(l) With more than three decades of evidence from randomized, controlled trials and rigorous followup evaluation studies, evidence-based home visiting programs have demonstrated sustained improvements in maternal health, child health, positive parenting practices, child development and school readiness, reductions in child maltreatment, family economic self-sufficiency, linkages and referrals, and reductions in family violence.
(m) Evidence-based home visiting programs have specifically demonstrated reductions in preterm births, preventable maternal mortality, smoking during pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, closely spaced subsequent births, childhood injuries resulting in costly emergency department use and hospitalizations, improved childhood immunization rates, compliance with well child visit schedules, lower body mass index rates, higher birth weights, and improved family well-being, including increased family health literacy, and parent self-help development. As a result of families benefiting from evidence-based home visiting, there have been cost savings to federal, state, and local governments with respect to programs and services, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
(n) The strong evidence of effectiveness and predictable return on investment demonstrate that evidence-based home visiting programs should be brought to scale in California to improve maternal and child health outcomes and help reduce health care costs for generations to come.
(o) By supporting families from the start, voluntary evidence-based home visiting programs serving families from prenatal to five years of age provide a foundation for subsequent early childhood programs and family support efforts to build upon, and can help ensure that families are well-equipped to raise California’s next generation of productive, healthy, and successful adults.
(p) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to develop a means to leverage public and private dollars to substantially expand the scale of evidence-based home visiting programs throughout California, beginning with communities and populations with the greatest need.
SEC. 2.
Section 14148.25 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
14148.25.
(a) The department shall, in consultation with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives from Medi-Cal managed care plans, public and private hospitals, evidence-based home visiting programs, and other governmental entities including local and state law enforcement and corrections agencies, local and state social services agencies, and local and state educational agencies, develop a feasibility plan on or before January 1, 2017, that describes the costs, benefits, and any potential barriers related to offering evidence-based home visiting programs to Medi-Cal eligible pregnant and parenting women. The department shall consult with stakeholders from diverse geographical regions of the state. The department shall consider all of the following in developing the plan:
(1) Establishing Medi-Cal coverage for evidence-based home visiting program services.
(2) Incentives for Medi-Cal providers to offer evidence-based home visiting program services.
(3) Other mechanisms to fund evidence-based home visiting program services for Medi-Cal eligible pregnant and parenting women.
(4) Identifying among evidence-based home visiting programs those with established evidence to improve health outcomes, the experience of care, and cost savings to the health care system.
(b) In developing the plan, the department shall prioritize the identification of funding sources, other than General Fund moneys, to fund evidence-based home visiting program services, including local, federal, or private funds, or any other funds made available for these program services.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Evidence-based program” means a program that is based on scientific evidence demonstrating that the program model is effective. An evidence-based program shall be reviewed on site and compared to program model standards by the model developer or the developer’s designee at least every five years to ensure that the program continues to maintain fidelity with the program model. The program model shall have had demonstrated and replicated significant and sustained positive outcomes that have been in one or more well-designed and rigorous randomized controlled research designs, and the evaluation results shall have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
(2) “Evidence-based home visiting program” means a program or initiative that does all of the following:
(A) Meets, on or before April 1, 2015, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) criteria, as described in Section 511(d)(3)(A)(i)(l) of Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 711).
(B) Contains home visiting as a primary service delivery strategy by providers satisfying home visiting program requirements to provide services to families with a pregnant or parenting woman who is eligible for medical assistance.
(C) Offers services on a voluntary basis to pregnant women, expectant fathers, and parents and caregivers of children from prenatal to five years of age.
(D) Targets participant outcomes that include all of the following:
(i) Improved maternal and child health.
(ii) Prevention of child injuries, child abuse or maltreatment, and reduction of emergency department visits.
(iii) Improvements in school readiness and achievement.
(iv) Reduction in crime or domestic violence.
(v) Improvements in family economic self-sufficiency.
(vi) Improvements in coordination of, and referrals to, other community resources and support.
(vii) Improvements in parenting skills related to child development.

Summary: Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including perinatal services for pregnant women. Existing law establishes the Nurse-Family Partnership program, which is administered by the State Department of Public Health, to provide grants for voluntary nurse home visiting programs for expectant first-time mothers, their children, and their families. Under existing law, a county is required to satisfy specified requirements in order to be eligible to receive a grant. This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to develop a feasibility plan on or before January 1, 2017, that describes the costs, benefits, and any potential barriers related to offering evidence-based home visiting programs to Medi-Cal eligible pregnant and parenting women. The bill would also require the department, in developing the plan, to consider, among other things, establishing Medi-Cal coverage for evidence-based home visiting program services and incentives for Medi-Cal providers to offer those services, and would require the department, in developing the plan, to prioritize the identification of funding sources, other than General Fund moneys, to fund evidence-based home visiting program services.

An act to add Section 14148.25 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to perinatal care.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Section 5348 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
5348.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (e) of Section 5346, a county that chooses to provide assisted outpatient treatment services pursuant to this article shall offer assisted outpatient treatment services including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Community-based, mobile, multidisciplinary, highly trained mental health teams that use high staff-to-client ratios of no more than 10 clients per team member for those subject to court-ordered services pursuant to Section 5346.
(2) A service planning and delivery process that includes the following:
(A) Determination of the numbers of persons to be served and the programs and services that will be provided to meet their needs. The local director of mental health shall consult with the sheriff, the police chief, the probation officer, the mental health board, contract agencies, and family, client, ethnic, and citizen constituency groups as determined by the director.
(B) Plans for services, including outreach to families whose severely mentally ill adult is living with them, design of mental health services, coordination and access to medications, psychiatric and psychological services, substance abuse services, supportive housing or other housing assistance, vocational rehabilitation, and veterans’ services. Plans shall also contain evaluation strategies, which shall consider cultural, linguistic, gender, age, and special needs of minorities and those based on any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code in the target populations. Provision shall be made for staff with the cultural background and linguistic skills necessary to remove barriers to mental health services as a result of having limited-English-speaking ability and cultural differences. Recipients of outreach services may include families, the public, primary care physicians, and others who are likely to come into contact with individuals who may be suffering from an untreated severe mental illness who would be likely to become homeless if the illness continued to be untreated for a substantial period of time. Outreach to adults may include adults voluntarily or involuntarily hospitalized as a result of a severe mental illness.
(C) Provision for services to meet the needs of persons who are physically disabled.
(D) Provision for services to meet the special needs of older adults.
(E) Provision for family support and consultation services, parenting support and consultation services, and peer support or self-help group support, if appropriate.
(F) Provision for services to be client-directed and to employ psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery principles.
(G) Provision for psychiatric and psychological services that are integrated with other services and for psychiatric and psychological collaboration in overall service planning.
(H) Provision for services specifically directed to seriously mentally ill young adults 25 years of age or younger who are homeless or at significant risk of becoming homeless. These provisions may include continuation of services that still would be received through other funds had eligibility not been terminated as a result of age.
(I) Services reflecting special needs of women from diverse cultural backgrounds, including supportive housing that accepts children, personal services coordinator therapeutic treatment, and substance treatment programs that address gender-specific trauma and abuse in the lives of persons with mental illness, and vocational rehabilitation programs that offer job training programs free of gender bias and sensitive to the needs of women.
(J) Provision for housing for clients that is immediate, transitional, permanent, or all of these.
(K) Provision for clients who have been suffering from an untreated severe mental illness for less than one year, and who do not require the full range of services, but who are at risk of becoming homeless unless a comprehensive individual and family support services plan is implemented. These clients shall be served in a manner that is designed to meet their needs.
(3) Each client shall have a clearly designated mental health personal services coordinator who may be part of a multidisciplinary treatment team that is responsible for providing or assuring needed services. Responsibilities include complete assessment of the client’s needs, development of the client’s personal services plan, linkage with all appropriate community services, monitoring of the quality and followthrough of services, and necessary advocacy to ensure each client receives those services that are agreed to in the personal services plan. Each client shall participate in the development of his or her personal services plan, and responsible staff shall consult with the designated conservator, if one has been appointed, and, with the consent of the client, shall consult with the family and other significant persons as appropriate.
(4) The individual personal services plan shall ensure that persons subject to assisted outpatient treatment programs receive age-appropriate, gender-appropriate, and culturally appropriate services, to the extent feasible, that are designed to enable recipients to:
(A) Live in the most independent, least restrictive housing feasible in the local community, and, for clients with children, to live in a supportive housing environment that strives for reunification with their children or assists clients in maintaining custody of their children as is appropriate.
(B) Engage in the highest level of work or productive activity appropriate to their abilities and experience.
(C) Create and maintain a support system consisting of friends, family, and participation in community activities.
(D) Access an appropriate level of academic education or vocational training.
(E) Obtain an adequate income.
(F) Self-manage their illnesses and exert as much control as possible over both the day-to-day and long-term decisions that affect their lives.
(G) Access necessary physical health care and maintain the best possible physical health.
(H) Reduce or eliminate serious antisocial or criminal behavior, and thereby reduce or eliminate their contact with the criminal justice system.
(I) Reduce or eliminate the distress caused by the symptoms of mental illness.
(J) Have freedom from dangerous addictive substances.
(5) The individual personal services plan shall describe the service array that meets the requirements of paragraph (4), and to the extent applicable to the individual, the requirements of paragraph (2).
(b) A county that provides assisted outpatient treatment services pursuant to this article also shall offer the same services on a voluntary basis.
(c) Involuntary medication shall not be allowed absent a separate order by the court pursuant to Sections 5332 to 5336, inclusive.
(d) A county that operates an assisted outpatient treatment program pursuant to this article shall provide data to the State Department of Health Care Services and, based on the data, the department shall report to the Governor and the Legislature on or before May 1 of each year regarding the services the county provides pursuant to this article. The report shall include, at a minimum, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the strategies employed by each program operated pursuant to this article in reducing homelessness and hospitalization of persons in the program and in reducing involvement with local law enforcement by persons in the program. The evaluation and report shall also include any other measures identified by the department regarding persons in the program and all of the following, based on information that is available:
(1) The number of persons served by the program and, of those, the number who are able to maintain housing and the number who maintain contact with the treatment system.
(2) The number of persons in the program with contacts with local law enforcement, and the extent to which local and state incarceration of persons in the program has been reduced or avoided.
(3) The number of persons in the program participating in employment services programs, including competitive employment.
(4) The days of hospitalization of persons in the program that have been reduced or avoided.
(5) Adherence to prescribed treatment by persons in the program.
(6) Other indicators of successful engagement, if any, by persons in the program.
(7) Victimization of persons in the program.
(8) Violent behavior of persons in the program.
(9) Substance abuse by persons in the program.
(10) Type, intensity, and frequency of treatment of persons in the program.
(11) Extent to which enforcement mechanisms are used by the program, when applicable.
(12) Social functioning of persons in the program.
(13) Skills in independent living of persons in the program.
(14) Satisfaction with program services both by those receiving them, and by their families, when relevant.
SEC. 2.
Section 5349.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
5349.5.
This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2022, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends that date.

Summary: Existing law, the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Demonstration Project Act of 2002, known as Laura’s Law, until January 1, 2017, grants each county the authority to offer certain assisted outpatient treatment services for their residents by adoption of a resolution or through the county budget process and by making a finding that no mental health program, as specified, may be reduced as a result of implementation. Under that law, participating counties are required to provide prescribed assisted outpatient services, including a service planning and delivery process, that are client-directed and employ psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery principles. Existing law authorizes participating counties to pay for the services provided from moneys distributed to the counties from various continuously appropriated funds, including the Local Revenue Fund and the Mental Health Services Fund when included in a county plan, as specified. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to submit a report and evaluation of all counties implementing any component of these provisions to the Governor and the Legislature by July 1, 2015. This bill would extend the operation of the program until January 1, 2022, and would delete that reporting requirement. By extending the authorization to pay for the services using moneys from various continuously appropriated funds, the bill would make an appropriation. Existing law requires a county that operates an assisted outpatient treatment program pursuant to these provisions to provide data to the department, and requires the department to report to the Legislature on or before May 1 of each year based on that data, as specified. This bill would additionally require the department to report that information to the Governor.

An act to amend Sections 5348 and 5349.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to mental health services, and making an appropriation therefor.


The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Section 6240 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
6240.
For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Immigration reform act” means either of the following:
(1) Any pending or future act of Congress that is enacted after October 5, 2013, that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States without inspection, who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, or who stayed beyond an authorized period, to attain a lawful status under federal law or to otherwise remain in the country. The State Bar shall announce and post on its Internet Web site when an immigration reform act has been enacted.
(2) The President’s executive actions on immigration announced on November 20, 2014, or any future executive action or order that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States without inspection, who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, or who stayed beyond an approved period pursuant to a visa, to attain a lawful status under federal law or to otherwise remain in the country. The State Bar shall announce and post on its Internet Web site when an executive action or order has been issued.
(b) (1) “Immigration reform act services” means services offered in connection with an immigration reform act that are exclusively for the purpose of preparing an application and other related initial processes in order for an undocumented immigrant, who entered the United States without inspection, who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, or who stayed beyond an approved period pursuant to a visa, to attain a lawful status under federal law or to otherwise remain in the country.
(2) Immigration reform act services do not include services that have an independent value apart from the preparation of an application pursuant to an immigration reform act and other related initial processes, including, but not limited to, assisting a client in preventing removal from the United States, preventing any other adverse action related to the ability to remain in the United States, including pending legal action, and achieving postconviction relief from prior criminal convictions.
SEC. 2.
Section 6242 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
6242.
(a) It is unlawful for an attorney to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds from a person for immigration reform act services in connection with any of the following:
(1) An immigration reform act as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 6240, before the enactment of that act, when the relevant form or application is released or announced and is not subject to any pending legal action, or when the acceptance date of the relevant form or application has been announced, whichever is sooner.
(2) (A) Requests for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) under an immigration reform act as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 6240, before the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting those requests.
(B) Requests for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) under an immigration reform act as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 6240, before the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting those requests.
(C) Any relief offered under any executive action announced or executive order issued, on or after the effective date of the act adding this subparagraph, that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain a lawful status under federal law, before the executive action or order has been implemented and the relief is available.
(b) Any advance payment of funds for immigration reform act services that was received after October 5, 2013, but before the enactment or implementation of the immigration reform act for which the services were sought, shall be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of the funds or placed into a client trust account, which must be returned or utilized under the provisions of the act amending this subdivision no later than January 20, 2017.
(c) (1) If an attorney providing immigration reform act services accepted funds for immigration reform act services prior to the effective date of this amendment to this section, and the services to be performed in connection with payment of those funds were rendered, the attorney shall promptly, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this amendment to this section, provide the client with a statement of accounting describing the services rendered.
(2) (A) Any funds received before the effective date of this amendment to this section for which immigration reform act services were not rendered prior to the effective date of this amendment to this section shall be either refunded to the client or deposited in a client trust account.
(B) If an attorney deposits funds in a client trust account pursuant to this paragraph, he or she shall provide a written notice, in both English and the client’s native language, informing the client of the following:
(i) That there are no benefits or relief available, and that no application for such benefits or relief may be processed, until enactment or implementation of an immigration reform act and the related necessary federal regulations or forms, and that, commencing with the effective date of this amendment to this section, it is unlawful for an attorney to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds from a person for immigration reform act services before the enactment or implementation of an immigration reform act.
(ii) That he or she may report complaints to the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice, to the State Bar of California, or to the bar of the court of any state, possession, territory, or commonwealth of the United States or of the District of Columbia where the attorney is admitted to practice law. The notice shall include the toll-free telephone numbers and Internet Web sites of those entities.
SEC. 3.
Section 22442.5 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
22442.5.
(a) An immigration consultant who provides immigration reform act services shall establish and deposit into a client trust account any funds received from a client prior to performing those services for that client.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Immigration reform act” means either of the following:
(A) Any pending or future act of Congress that is enacted after October 5, 2013, that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, to attain a lawful status under federal law. The State Bar shall announce and post on its Internet Web site when an immigration reform act has been enacted.
(B) The President’s executive actions on immigration announced on November 20, 2014, or any future executive action or order that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain a lawful status under federal law. The State Bar shall announce and post on its Internet Web site when an executive action or order has been issued.
(2) “Immigration reform act services” means services described in Section 22441 that are provided in connection with an immigration reform act.
(c) The immigration consultant providing immigration reform act services for the client may withdraw funds received from that client only in compliance with either of the following:
(1) After completing one or more of the itemized services described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442, and only in the amount identified as the cost of that service or those services pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.
(2) After completing one or more of the documents listed, and only in the amounts listed, pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.
SEC. 4.
Section 22442.6 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
22442.6.
(a) It is unlawful for an immigration consultant to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds from a person for immigration reform act services in connection with any of the following:
(1) An immigration reform act as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.5, before the enactment of that act.
(2) (A) Requests for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) under an immigration reform act as defined in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.5, before the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting those requests.
(B) Requests for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) under an immigration reform act as defined in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.5, before the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services begins accepting those requests.
(C) Requests for Expanded Provisional Waivers of Unlawful Presence under an immigration reform act as defined in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22442.5, before the issuance and effective date of new guidelines and regulations for those provisional waivers.
(D) Any relief offered under any executive action announced or executive order issued, on or after the effective date of the act adding this subparagraph, that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain a lawful status under federal law, before the executive action or order has been implemented and the relief is available.
(b) Any advance payment of funds for immigration reform act services that was received after October 5, 2013, but before the enactment or implementation of the immigration reform act for which the services were sought, shall be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of the funds.
(c) (1) If an immigration consultant providing immigration reform act services accepted funds prior to the effective date of this amendment to this section, and the services provided in connection with payment of those funds were rendered, the consultant shall promptly, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this amendment to this section, provide the client with a statement of accounting describing the services rendered.
(2) (A) Any funds received before the effective date of this amendment to this section for which immigration reform act services were not rendered prior to the effective date of this amendment to this section shall either be refunded to the client or shall be deposited in a client trust account pursuant to Section 22442.5.
(B) If an immigration consultant deposits funds in a client trust account pursuant to this paragraph, he or she shall comply with all applicable provisions of this chapter, including Section 22442, and shall provide to the client a written notice, in both English and in the client’s native language, that there are no benefits or relief available, that no application for such benefits or relief may be processed until enactment or implementation of an immigration reform act and the related necessary federal regulations and forms, and that commencing with the effective date of this amendment to this section, it is unlawful for an immigration consultant to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds from a person for immigration reform act services before the enactment or implementation of an immigration reform act.
(d) (1) In addition to the remedies and penalties prescribed in this chapter, a person who violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each violation, to be assessed and collected in a civil action brought by any person injured by the violation or in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney.
(2) In assessing the amount of the civil penalty, the court may consider relevant circumstances presented by the parties to the case, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) The nature and severity of the misconduct.
(B) The number of violations.
(C) The length of time over which the misconduct occurred, and the persistence of the misconduct.
(D) The willfulness of the misconduct.
(E) The defendant’s assets, liabilities, and net worth.
(3) If the Attorney General brings the action, one-half of the civil penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and one-half to the General Fund. If a district attorney brings the action, the civil penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered. If a city attorney brings the action, one-half of the civil penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the city in which the judgment was entered, and one-half to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered.
(4) The court shall grant a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
SEC. 5.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
SEC. 6.
This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to implement measures as quickly as possible and as necessary to prevent fraud on immigrants by attorneys and other persons by making promises of benefits and relief under pending and proposed federal immigration reform acts before their enactment or before their relief and remedies become available, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

Summary: Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law prohibits an attorney from demanding or accepting the advance payment of any funds from a person before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as defined, that is enacted after October 5, 2013, and before January 1, 2017, and requires any funds received during a specified time to be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of any funds, as provided. Existing law requires the State Bar to provide specified information relating to immigration reform act services on its Internet Web site. This bill would revise the definition of an immigration reform act to include any immigration reform act enacted after October 5, 2013, the President’s executive actions on immigration announced on November 20, 2014, or any future executive action or order that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States without inspection, who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, or who stayed beyond an approved period, to attain a lawful status under federal law or to otherwise remain in the country. This bill would require the State Bar to announce and post on its Internet Web site when an executive action or order described above has been issued. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for an attorney to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds for immigration reform act services in connection with requests for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, requests for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or other future relief, as provided, under federal law. This bill would also provide that an advance payment of funds for immigration reform act services may be placed into a client trust account, as specified. Existing law provides for the regulation of a person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of an immigration consultant, and provides that a violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires an immigration consultant to establish a client trust account and to deposit in this account any funds received from the client prior to performing immigration reform act services, as defined, for that client. Existing law prohibits an immigration consultant from demanding or accepting the advance payment of any funds from a person before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as defined, that is enacted after October 5, 2013, and before January 1, 2017, and requires any funds received during a specified time to be refunded to the client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt of any funds, as provided. Existing law prescribes civil penalties, not to exceed $1,000 per day for each violation, for immigration consultants who violate these provisions. This bill would revise the definition of an immigration reform act to include any immigration reform act enacted after October 5, 2013, the President’s executive actions on immigration announced on November 20, 2014, or any future executive action or order that authorizes an undocumented immigrant who either entered the United States without inspection or who did not depart after the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa, to attain a lawful status under federal law. This bill would require the State Bar to announce and post on its Internet Web site when an executive action or order described above has been issued. This bill would provide that it is unlawful for an immigration consultant to demand or accept the advance payment of any funds for immigration reform act services in connection with requests for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, requests for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, expanded Provisional Waivers of Unlawful Presence, or other future relief, as provided, under federal law. Because a violation of these provisions by an immigration consultant would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

An act to amend Sections 6240, 6242, 22442.5, and 22442.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to immigration services, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.