Report 2010-116 Recommendation 4 Responses

Report 2010-116: Sex Offender Commitment Program: Streamlining the Process for Identifying Potential Sexually Violent Predators Would Reduce Unnecessary or Duplicative Work (Release Date: July 2011)

Recommendation #4 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To eliminate duplicative effort and increase efficiency, Corrections should not make unnecessary referrals to Mental Health. Corrections and Mental Health should jointly revise the structured screening instrument so that the referral process adheres more closely to the law's intent.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

same response as previous years

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2014

A collaborative review of the structured screening instruments by CDCR, BPH and DSH resulted in no change to one of the instruments (CDCR 7377). The CDCR 7377 SVP Screening form was not revised because it was collectively determined that the form currently adheres to the law's intent, pursuant to the January 25, 2011, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CDCR, BPH and DSH. A clinical review was also developed of the performance of the sexually violent predator screening functions described in WIC 6601(b). The clinical review served as an update to the structured screening instrument as required by statute.

In accordance with the MOU, it was agreed upon by all entities that DSH will provide the clinical review as to whether the case may meet the statutory requirements commencing with WIC 6600, prior to referring for a full evaluation.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2013

CSA indicated in the email that CDCR is contradicting our position from last year. Specifically, CSA stated that CDCR indicated, "Fully Implemented," in our updated response for item number 4, when in fact, our response was "Partially Implemented," however after reconsideration of the recommendation and discussion with A.D. Tanya Rothchild, we have determined that our response should be "Will Not Implement." The basis for our recommendation is that the CDCR 7377 SVP Screening form was not revised because it was collectively determined that the form currently adheres to the law's intent.

The BSA report of July, 2011 proposed Corrective Action Plan was for CDCR, BPH, and DSH to review the revision of the structured screening instrument. On June, 2012 CDCR, BPH, and DSH reviewed two of the instruments and the collective decision was not to change one of the instruments, (CDCR 7377, SVP Screening form). CDCR, BPH, and DSH agreed that the other instrument, the CDCR/BPH/DMH Collaborative SVP Screening DMH Clinical Review screening instrument, should be revised. The MOU and Attachments are the corresponding documentation that demonstrates that one of the two structured screening instruments was revised. Attached is the January, 2011 MOU which includes the revised screening tool, (CDCR/BPH/DMH Collaborative SVP Screening DMH Clinical Review screening instrument, Attachment A). Attachment B, also included with the MOU, is the CDCR/BPH/DMH Collaborative SVP

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2012

The collaborative screening between CDCR and DSH is the most efficient method to eliminate duplicative effort, and utilize the limited number of clinicians who are qualified and available for screening. Predicting future sexual dangerousness is an extraordinarily complex undertaking, and there are a limited number of clinicians available.

DSH and CDCR have worked together to conclude that the best way to screen is for CDCR to review the person's social, criminal, and institutional history, and for DSH to determine whether the person has a mental disorder that, coupled with the CDCR material, makes that person "likely to be a sexually violent predator... ". (Welf. & Inst. 6601(b).)

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement


All Recommendations in 2010-116

Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader