AB 3632 (May Revision Proposal)
AB 3632 May Revision Proposal - OPPOSE (Updated)
May 24, 2010
Honorable Dave Jones
Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1
Capitol Building, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Jones:
Disability Rights California, a non-profit advocacy organization mandated to advance the human and legal rights of people with disabilities, opposes the AB 3632 May revision proposal.
AB 3632 mandates that counties provide mental health services to children who need them pursuant to an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires funding for free and appropriate public education, including related services (such as mental health services) necessary for a child to benefit from his or her special education. While local educational entities are ultimately responsible for providing the mental health services identified in a child’s IEP, suspension of AB 3632 would most likely result in complete disarray and gaps in services for children as shifts in responsibility for and funding of the services occur. For example, it would likely mean that children would change mental health providers, day treatment programs, or residential programs and would not get continuity of care.
County mental heath agencies have the expertise that the schools lack. If the local school district becomes the only agency responsible for meeting mental health needs, there may be an institutional disincentive to identify children as having complex and potentially costly service needs. The fact that AB 3632 has been under-funded, or unfunded, does not undermine the underlying policy of maximizing and coordinating existing state resources that existed when AB 3632 was signed into law. Further we believe counties must be reimbursed for the mental health services they provide to special education students.
Education staff are not qualified and prepared to provide mental health services, such as medication management and mental health therapy. It is more cost effective for county mental health to provide mental health services because they already have staff and contract providers – they don't need to set up a mental health infrastructure whereas school districts would. Untreated mental health needs are costly because problems that reach a crisis level require intensive, higher-cost interventions.
In addition county mental health is in a better position to bill Medi-Cal for services provided to eligible students and thus, draw down federal dollars. We do not believe school districts are set up to bill Medi-Cal.
California school districts simply do not have the experience or staff to provide the services that county mental health agencies have provided for two decades. It is unrealistic to expect school districts to take over assessing, identifying mental health service needs and placement alternatives for special education students with mental health needs.
Please contact me if you have any questions about our position on this matter.
Very truly yours,
Margaret Johnson, Esq.
Disability Rights California
Advocacy Director
CC: Honorable Members of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1
Helpful links and resources
Legislation and budget archive
Back to "2010 Position Letters"
Back to "In the legislature"