SB 28 amends Health and Safety Code section 11972 to require that treatment court programs be available and offered to all eligible California defendants, rather than merely authorized or optional. The bill directs courts to design and operate those programs in accordance with state and national guidelines (incorporating All Rise’s Adult and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards) and adds a new requirement that a designated "drug addiction expert" perform a substance abuse and mental health evaluation and submit a written report to the court and parties.
The measure explicitly ties treatment‑court availability to the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act (the initiative known as Proposition 36), provides that compliant treatment court programs satisfy Section 11395 requirements, and declares the law an urgency statute so it takes effect immediately. The change standardizes expectations for courts and creates operational and funding questions for counties, treatment providers, and criminal justice actors during implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires that treatment court programs be available and offered to any defendant eligible under Section 11395, mandates program design consistent with All Rise best practices, and requires a drug addiction expert to perform and file a substance abuse and mental health evaluation. It makes treatment courts an acceptable way to satisfy Section 11395 requirements and makes the statute immediately effective as an urgency measure.
Who It Affects
State and county trial courts, county behavioral health and alcohol/drug program administrators, defense counsel and prosecutors who participate in nonadversarial treatment court processes, treatment providers who will deliver services and perform evaluations, and defendants eligible under the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act (Proposition 36).
Why It Matters
The bill converts optional, locally adopted treatment court models into a statewide offering for eligible defendants and formalizes the role of clinical evaluation in court placement decisions, which reshapes how courts, counties, and providers must organize services and document participant assessments for Prop 36 implementation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 28 tightens the legal frame around treatment courts by moving from an opt‑in, locally driven model to a requirement that treatment court programs be available and offered to defendants who meet the criteria in the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act (Section 11395). The bill requires courts to design and operate programs consistent with established state and national best practices—explicitly naming All Rise’s adult and family treatment court standards—and lists program components the Legislature intends courts to include, such as integrated behavioral health services, frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, ongoing judicial interaction, monitoring and evaluation, and attention to equitable access.
A new, discrete duty in the statute requires that a "drug addiction expert" conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of defendants considered for treatment court and submit a written report to the court and to the parties. The statute lists illustrative categories of experts (psychiatrists, psychologists, specified Welfare and Institutions Code professionals, or other qualified individuals), but leaves room for other qualified evaluators based on training and experience.
That requirement creates a documented clinical basis for placement and for tailoring treatment plans and monitoring, and it embeds clinical findings in the court record.SB 28 also makes clear that a treatment court program that complies with the statute’s standards satisfies the requirements of Section 11395, linking the court‑based treatment pathway to the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act (Proposition 36). Finally, the bill declares itself an urgency statute so the changes take effect immediately to facilitate rolling out treatment court capacity for defendants choosing the Prop 36 pathway.
That immediacy pressures counties and courts to align program design, staffing, and referral processes without the lead time ordinarily used for program development.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 28 requires treatment court programs to be available and offered to all defendants who are eligible for treatment under Section 11395 (the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act).
The statute adds a new requirement that a drug addiction expert perform a substance abuse and mental health evaluation and file a report with the court and the parties before placement in the program.
SB 28 directs courts to design and operate treatment courts consistent with All Rise’s Adult and Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards and lists key program components (integration of services, testing, incentives/sanctions, judicial interaction, monitoring, and equitable access).
A treatment court program that complies with the statute counts as satisfying the requirements of Section 11395, formally linking treatment courts to Prop 36’s treatment option.
The bill declares itself an urgency statute and takes effect immediately to expedite treatment court availability for defendants choosing the Proposition 36 pathway.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory availability and required program standards
This subsection changes the baseline from permissive to mandatory: treatment court programs must be available to all eligible defendants, and courts must ensure program design and operation follow state and national guidelines incorporating All Rise best practices. Practically, counties and courts will need to align local program policies, vendor contracts, and staffing to meet enumerated components such as integrated behavioral health services, testing protocols, and monitoring systems. The provision also signals legislative expectations about program content and equitable access, which courts and counties will have to translate into operational policies and budgets.
Drug addiction expert evaluation and reporting requirement
Paragraph 12 requires a qualified "drug addiction expert" to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation and submit a report to the court and the parties. The statute lists psychiatrists, psychologists, certain Welfare and Institutions Code‑specified professionals, and other qualified individuals as examples. That creates a formal, discoverable clinical record supporting treatment court placement decisions and individualized treatment planning, and it establishes who may be called on to provide those evaluations, affecting provider credentialing, billing, timelines for assessment, and confidentiality protocols.
Tie to Section 11395 (Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act)
Subdivision (b) requires that a treatment court program meeting these standards be available and offered to persons eligible under Section 11395, directly connecting treatment courts to the initiative measure (Proposition 36). This linkage means courts must ensure that eligible defendants are presented with a compliant treatment court option as part of the Prop 36 process, which will influence courtroom workflows, plea‑and‑sentencing practices, and coordination between criminal courts and county behavioral health systems.
Satisfaction of Section 11395 requirements and urgency clause
Subdivision (c) clarifies that treatment court programs established under section 11972 satisfy the requirements in Section 11395, streamlining legal compliance for courts choosing the treatment route. SEC. 2 declares the act an urgency statute to take effect immediately, intended to accelerate implementation so treatment courts are ready for defendants exercising the Prop 36 option. The urgency clause reduces lead time for counties and courts to create compliant programs, raising practical implementation pressures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Defendants eligible under Section 11395: They gain a standardized treatment court option backed by documented clinical evaluation, which may improve individualized treatment placement and monitoring.
- Treatment providers and clinical evaluators: Providers who perform the required evaluations and deliver evidence‑based services are likely to see increased, more predictable referrals from courts and potential for formal contracting with counties.
- Judges and court administrators: Clear statutory standards and an explicit role for clinical assessment give judges structured tools and records to oversee participants and measure program outcomes, reducing ad hoc decisionmaking.
Who Bears the Cost
- County courts and county behavioral health agencies: They must scale program capacity, contract or hire qualified evaluators, fund treatment slots, and build monitoring systems—costs that may fall on local budgets absent dedicated state funding.
- Defense and prosecution offices: Staff will need training and time to adapt to nonadversarial treatment court protocols, participate in multidisciplinary teams, and review clinical reports—raising workload and potential staffing needs.
- Behavioral health providers with limited capacity: Providers may face sudden demand spikes for evaluations and residential/outpatient services, straining capacity and potentially increasing wait times if funding and workforce are not expanded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 28 pits two legitimate aims against each other: expanding and standardizing access to court‑based treatment (to make Proposition 36 operational and clinically informed) versus the practical limits of local capacity, funding, and legal constraints on changing voter‑enacted initiative terms—forcing a trade‑off between rapid access and the risk of uneven, underfunded, or legally contested implementation.
The bill creates real implementation challenges that the statutory text does not resolve. Requiring treatment courts to be "available and offered" to all defendants eligible under Section 11395 shifts from discretionary local pilots to an operational expectation statewide, but it does not include funding or staffing provisions.
Counties and courts will need to decide whether to expand existing programs, create new ones, or develop referral agreements with external providers; each path has different cost and timing implications. The urgency clause compounds this by removing a planning window and forcing jurisdictions to align quickly with the standards if they are to serve defendants choosing the Proposition 36 pathway.
The expert‑evaluation mandate improves clinical grounding for placement decisions but raises collateral questions about timing, confidentiality, evidentiary use, and cost. The statute requires the report be submitted to the court and the parties, which embeds clinical findings in the record and may trigger discovery and privacy concerns under mental health confidentiality rules.
The bill’s illustrative list of acceptable experts leaves discretion for courts to accept other qualified evaluators, but it does not set minimum timelines for evaluations or address who pays for them, creating risk of uneven access. Finally, although the digest notes that this change would amend the Treatment‑Mandated Felony Act, the bill’s adjustments to a voter initiative create procedural and constitutional tension about the Legislature’s authority to alter initiative provisions without the supermajority or voter approval mechanisms typically required; the statutory text itself does not resolve that governance question.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.