AB 308 adds a new chapter to the Welfare and Institutions Code that authorizes county behavioral health directors to develop procedures for mobile crisis teams or units when responding to emergencies involving people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) or behavioral health conditions. The statute is permissive: counties that operate or contract for mobile crisis services may adopt procedures; the director is not compelled to do so.
If a county adopts procedures, the bill requires those procedures to address deescalation techniques tailored to an individual’s circumstances, guidance on the appropriate amount of force if force is necessary, and best practices for transporting the person to a health or care facility. The bill also allows the director to develop training for those procedures, but requires any training to be developed in conjunction with law enforcement.
AB 308 therefore creates a framework for local protocol development and cross-agency training while leaving key implementation choices, timelines, and funding to counties.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates Chapter 10 (starting at Section 8300) in Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code that permits county behavioral health directors to draft procedures for mobile crisis teams and units addressing encounters with individuals with IDD or behavioral health conditions. When procedures are adopted they must cover deescalation, an "appropriate amount of force," and transportation guidance; training may be created and must be developed with law enforcement.
Who It Affects
County behavioral health directors and the mobile crisis teams or vendors they operate or contract with are the primary actors. Local law enforcement agencies will be involved in joint training; regional centers, care facilities, and families of people with IDD or behavioral health conditions will be directly affected by any change in on-scene response and transport practices.
Why It Matters
The bill gives counties a statutory hook to formalize protocols and joint training that can change how frontline responders handle vulnerable people in crisis. Because adoption is discretionary and the bill omits funding, reporting, and statewide minimums, implementation is likely to vary across counties—shaping service quality, liability exposure, and contracting practices at the local level.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 308 creates a new, narrowly focused statutory chapter that centers on county-level policymaking for mobile crisis responses. It does not mandate statewide rules; instead it gives the county behavioral health director explicit authority to develop local procedures for mobile crisis teams or units that respond to emergencies involving individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (as defined by reference to Section 4512) or people experiencing behavioral health crises.
The delegation is permissive: counties must opt in by developing procedures.
When a county chooses to act, the statute specifies three topic areas the procedures must address. First, they must set out deescalation techniques that are tailored to the person’s specific circumstances—recognizing, for example, communication differences or sensory sensitivities common among people with autism.
Second, the procedures must offer guidance about the "appropriate amount of force" to use if force becomes necessary, which imports legal and operational judgments about when and how force may be applied. Third, the procedures must include guidance and best practices for transporting the person to a designated health or care facility when transport is required.The bill also contemplates training tied to those procedures: the behavioral health director may develop training, but any training developed must be created in conjunction with law enforcement.
That choice formalizes cross-agency collaboration but also raises questions about the training’s focus and ownership. Notably absent from the statute are deadlines, funding authorizations, a state enforcement or certification mechanism, metrics or reporting requirements, and any prescriptive limits on force.
The result is a statutory framework that encourages local protocol development and interagency training while leaving the form, scope, and oversight of those efforts to county discretion.Practical implications flow from those design choices. Counties with existing mobile crisis capacity can translate the statute into contract amendments, revised SOPs, and joint trainings with police—potentially reducing harmful encounters if well designed.
Counties without such capacity face the decision to invest in procedure-writing and training without state guidance or funding. Contracts with vendor providers will need updating to reflect any new county procedures.
Finally, the statutory references and the bill’s silence on enforcement mean courts, counsel, and insurers may play a large role in shaping how "appropriate amount of force" and transport practices are interpreted in real cases.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 8300) to Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to authorize county-level procedures for mobile crisis responses.
Section 8300 links the bill’s term "intellectual or developmental disability" to the definition of "developmental disability" in Section 4512.
The authorization applies only to counties that operate or contract for a mobile crisis team or mobile crisis unit—private contractors and county-run teams are both covered when a county chooses to act.
If a county adopts procedures, Section 8301(b) requires those procedures to address (1) individualized deescalation techniques, (2) guidance on the "appropriate amount of force," and (3) transportation best practices to health or care facilities.
Section 8301(c) makes training optional but requires any training developed for those procedures to be created in conjunction with law enforcement, formalizing joint development.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition cross-reference for intellectual or developmental disability
This short section imports an existing statutory definition by reference, treating "intellectual or developmental disability" the same as "developmental disability" in Section 4512. That linkage matters because it ties the chapter to the broader legal framework governing regional centers and services for people with developmental disabilities, and it clarifies the population the procedures are meant to cover.
Scope and discretionary authorization for county procedures
Subsection (a) gives the county behavioral health director discretionary authority to develop procedures for mobile crisis teams or units in counties that operate or contract for those services. The permissive language—"may develop"—is important: the statute does not compel counties to adopt procedures or set state timelines. The scope explicitly includes incidents involving individuals with IDD (including autism) and people with behavioral health conditions, and it applies regardless of whether the crisis response is provided directly by the county or through a contractor.
Required content areas if procedures are adopted
If a county elects to create procedures, subsection (b) mandates three content areas. Paragraph (1) requires deescalation techniques calibrated to an individual's circumstances, which will require counties to consider communication strategies, sensory issues, and safety planning. Paragraph (2)'s directive on "the appropriate amount of force" invites operational guidance but leaves legal thresholds (e.g., use-of-force law) intact; the phrase is broad and will demand careful drafting to avoid conflicts with state criminal law and civil liability standards. Paragraph (3) calls for guidance on transportation to designated health or care facilities, encompassing decisions about voluntary versus involuntary transport, handoff protocols, and transport safety.
Optional training development and required law enforcement collaboration
This subsection allows the behavioral health director to develop training tied to the adopted procedures but requires that any training be developed in conjunction with law enforcement. Practically, this creates an explicit interagency design role for police agencies and sheriff's offices. That requirement can help operationalize joint response protocols, but it also raises questions about training content ownership, who delivers training, and how to balance clinical and public-safety perspectives in curricula.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities and behavioral health conditions — could receive responses that better account for communication differences and sensory needs when counties adopt tailored deescalation and transport procedures.
- Families and caregivers — may see clearer handoff and transport practices and reduced escalation if counties implement robust, individualized procedures.
- County behavioral health directors and mobile crisis teams — gain statutory authority to codify best practices, coordinate with law enforcement, and set expectations for vendors and staff.
- Local law enforcement agencies — benefit from required collaboration on training, which can improve on-scene coordination and clarify roles during joint responses.
Who Bears the Cost
- Counties that operate or contract mobile crisis services — face administrative and staff time costs to draft procedures, run joint trainings, and revise contracts, with no state funding or deadlines provided.
- Contracted crisis-service providers and vendor organizations — will need to update protocols, train personnel, and possibly renegotiate contract terms to align with any new county procedures.
- Local law enforcement agencies — must commit personnel time and perhaps training resources to co-develop and participate in trainings, which can strain budgets and schedules.
- Individuals and advocates — may indirectly bear the cost of uneven protections if some counties choose not to adopt procedures, producing a patchwork of safeguards across the state.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—giving counties flexibility to tailor crisis-response protocols to local needs and ensuring vulnerable people receive safer, better-coordinated responses—but it offers no mechanism to reconcile them: greater local control increases innovation and contextual fit, while the absence of statewide minimums, timelines, funding, or oversight risks a patchwork of protections and potential legal uncertainty for responders and people in crisis.
AB 308 creates a useful statutory space for counties to define how mobile crisis teams should handle encounters with people who have IDD or behavioral health conditions, but it leaves several implementation details unresolved. The statute is discretionary—counties "may" adopt procedures—so adoption rates will vary with local priorities and budgets.
The bill does not attach funding, deadlines, monitoring, reporting, or minimum content standards beyond three broad topic areas, which increases the risk of uneven quality across counties.
The requirement that procedures provide guidance on the "appropriate amount of force" is analytically loaded: the phrase is intentionally broad and intersects with criminal law, civil liability standards, collective bargaining rules for peace officers, and constitutional limitations. Without clearer definitions or statewide guardrails, counties could draft guidance that is inconsistent or that invites litigation.
Similarly, the training mandate to develop curricula in conjunction with law enforcement formalizes collaboration but may bias course content toward public-safety perspectives unless clinical partners and disability advocates are explicitly included. Finally, the bill is silent on data collection, oversight, confidentiality during transport, and how these procedures interface with regional center emergency-response obligations and existing involuntary hold laws, leaving significant practical and legal questions for counties to resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.