To reduce costs for unnecessary evaluations, Mental Health should either issue a regulation or seek a statutory amendment to clarify that when resolving a difference of opinion between the two initial evaluators of an offender, Mental Health must seek the opinion of a fourth evaluator only when a third evaluator concludes that the offender meets SVP criteria.
Previously reported on 10/2/2014 that this will not be implemented.
DSH will not seek regulations or a statutory amendment clarifying that when resolving a difference of opinion between two initial evaluations a fourth evaluation will be conducted only when the third is positive. Based on significant reduction in CDCR referrals and the scarcity of cost savings DSH will obtain two independent evaluations to resolve cases where there is a difference of opinion.
As previously reported, DSH has begun the approval process for a proposed regulation to seek the opinion of a fourth evaluator only when the third evaluator concludes the offender meets SVP criteria. It is anticipated the proposed regulation will be submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) by the end of December 2013.
The Department of State Hospitals (DSH) has begun the approval process for a proposed regulation which will be sent to the Office of Administrative Law to seek the opinion of a fourth evaluator only when a third evaluator concludes that the offender meets SVP criteria.
†Response Type refers to the interval in which the auditee is providing the State Auditor with their status in implementing recommendations made in an audit report. Auditees must submit a response regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year or subsequent to one year.
*Agency responses received after June 2013 are posted verbatim.