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

Independent NONPARTISAN
TRANSPARENT Accountability

The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by
check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033
OR
This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For
information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov.
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.
For questions regarding the contents of this report,
please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

Doug Cordiner
Chief Deputy

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4

July 12, 2011	

916.445.0255

916.327.0019 fax

w w w. b s a . c a . g o v

2010-116

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report
concerning the state’s Sex Offender Commitment Program (program), which targets a narrow subpopulation
of sex offenders (offenders)—those who represent the highest risk to public safety because of mental disorders.
Our analysis shows that between 2007 and 2010 less than 1 percent of the offenders whom the Department of
Mental Health (Mental Health) evaluated as sexually violent predators (SVPs) met the criteria necessary for
commitment.
Our report concludes that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) and Mental Health’s
processes for identifying and evaluating SVPs are not as efficient as they could be and at times have resulted in
the State performing unnecessary work. The current inefficiencies in the process for identifying and evaluating
potential SVPs stems in part from Corrections’ interpretation of state law. These inefficiencies were compounded
by recent changes made by voters through the passage of Jessica’s Law in 2006. Specifically, Jessica’s Law added
more crimes to the list of sexually violent offenses and reduced the required number of victims to be considered
for the SVP designation from two to one, and as a result many more offenders became potentially eligible for
commitment. Additionally, Corrections refers all offenders convicted of specified criminal offenses enumerated
in law but does not consider whether an offender committed a predatory offense or other factors that make the
person likely to be an SVP, both of which are required by state law. As a result, the number of referrals Mental
Health received dramatically increased from 1,850 in 2006 to 8,871 in 2007, the first full year Jessica’s Law was
in effect. In addition, in 2008 and 2009 Corrections referred 7,338 and 6,765 offenders, respectively. However,
despite the increased number of referrals it received, Mental Health recommended to the district attorneys
or the county counsels responsible for handling SVP cases about the same number of offenders in 2009 as it
did in 2005, before the voters passed Jessica’s Law. In addition, the courts ultimately committed only a small
percentage of those offenders. Further, we noted that 45 percent of Corrections’ referrals involved offenders
whom Mental Health previously screened or evaluated and had found not to meet SVP criteria. Corrections’
process did not consider the results of previous referrals or the nature of parole violations when re‑referring
offenders, which is allowable under the law.
Our review also found that Mental Health primarily used contracted evaluators to perform its evaluations—
which state law expressly permits through the end of 2011. Mental Health indicated that it has had difficulty
attracting qualified evaluators to its employment and hopes to remedy the situation by establishing a new
position with higher pay that is more competitive with the contractors. However, it has not kept the Legislature
up to date regarding its efforts to hire staff to perform evaluations, as state law requires, nor has it reported the
impact of Jessica’s Law on the program.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Contents
Summary	

1

Introduction	

5

Audit Results	
Although the Department of Mental Health Evaluates 	
Thousands of Offenders Each Year, the Courts Commit Only a
Tiny Percentage as Sexually Violent Predators	

13

Corrections’ Failure to Comply With the Law When Referring	
Offenders Has Significantly Increased Mental Health’s Workload	

17

Although Mental Health Did Not Conduct Full Evaluations of	
All Referred Offenders, It Generally Ensured That Offenders Were	
Properly Screened and Evaluated	

24

Mental Health Has Used Contractors to Perform Its Evaluations	
Due to Limited Success in Increasing Its Staff	

29

Mental Health Has Not Reported to the Legislature About Its	
Efforts to Hire State Employees as Evaluators or About the Impact
of Jessica’s Law on the Program	

32

Recommendations  	

33

Responses to the Audit
California Department of Mental Health	

35

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation	

39

vii

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Summary
Results in Brief
The Legislature designed the Sex Offender Commitment Program
(program) to target a narrow subpopulation of sex offenders
(offenders): those who represent the highest risk to public safety
because of mental disorders. However, between 2007 and 2010,
very few offenders whom the Department of Mental Health
(Mental Health) evaluated as potential sexually violent predators
(SVPs) met the criteria necessary for commitment. As a result, the
courts ultimately committed only a small percentage as SVPs even
though Mental Health received more than 6,000 referrals in each of
these years from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections). Our analysis suggests that Corrections’ and Mental
Health’s processes for identifying and evaluating SVPs are not as
efficient as they could be and at times have resulted in the State
performing unnecessary work.
The current inefficiencies in the program’s process for evaluating
potential SVPs are in part the result of Corrections’ interpretation
of state law. The inefficiencies were compounded by recent changes
made by Jessica’s Law. Specifically, when California voters passed
Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) in 2006, they added more crimes
to the list of sexually violent offenses and reduced the number of
victims considered for this designation from two to one; therefore,
many more offenders became potentially eligible for commitment
to the program. Corrections, in consultation with its Board of
Parole Hearings (Parole Board), referred all offenders who had
committed sexually violent offenses to Mental Health for evaluation
as potential SVPs without first considering other factors, as
required by law. Consequently, the number of referrals Corrections
made to Mental Health increased dramatically, from 1,850 in 2006
to 8,871 in 2007, the first full year that Jessica’s Law was effective.
However, Corrections’ referral of every offender who has committed
a sexually violent crime was not the intent of state law, which
specifically mandates that Corrections determine when making
referrals whether offenders’ crimes were predatory and whether
the offenders meet other criteria before referring them as potential
SVPs. We believe that if Corrections screened offenders more
closely before referring them to Mental Health, the number of
Corrections’ referrals might drop significantly. For example, in our
review, we noted several instances in which Corrections referred
offenders whose crimes were not predatory under the law’s
definition. Further, 45 percent of Corrections’ referrals since 2005
involved offenders whom Mental Health had previously screened
or evaluated and had found not to meet the criteria to recommend
commitment as SVPs (SVP criteria). Although state law does

Audit Highlights . . .
Our review of the state’s Sex Offender
Commitment Program (program)
between  January 2005 and September 2010
revealed the following:
»» The Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) sent more
than 6,000 referrals each year from 2007
through 2010 to the Department of Mental
Health (Mental Health) for evaluation as
potential sexually violent predators (SVPs).
»» Many more offenders became potentially
eligible for commitment to the program
when California voters approved
Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83)—the law
added more crimes to the list of sexually
violent offenses and reduced the number
of victims considered for this designation
from two to one.
»» Because Corrections referred all offenders
who had committed sexually violent
offenses to Mental Health for evaluation,
this also contributed to the number of
referrals increasing from 1,850 in 2006
to 8,871 in 2007, the first full year that
Jessica’s Law was in effect.
•	 We noted several instances in which
Corrections referred offenders whose
crimes were not predatory under the law.
•	 Since 2005, 45 percent of the referrals
involved offenders whom Mental Health
had previously screened or evaluated
and had found not to meet the criteria
to recommend commitment as SVPs.
»» Corrections failed to refer offenders to
Mental Health at least six months before
their scheduled release dates as required
and, thus, shortened the time available
for Mental Health to perform reviews and
schedule evaluations.
continued on next page . . .

1

2

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

»» Although Mental Health’s evaluation
process appears to have been effective,
for a time it sometimes assigned one
evaluator, rather than the two required.
»» Mental Health used between 46 and
77 contractors each year from 2005
through 2010 to perform evaluations and
some clinical screenings, however, the
state law that expressly allows Mental
Health to use contractors expires in 2012.
»» Mental Health did not submit required
reports to the Legislature about its efforts
to hire staff to evaluate offenders and
about the impact of Jessica’s Law on
the program.

not specifically require Corrections to consider the outcomes of
previous screenings or evaluations when making referrals, the law
directs Corrections to refer only those offenders it deems likely to
be SVPs, and we believe that it is logical and legal for Corrections
to take into account Mental Health’s previous conclusions about
specific offenders when reaching such determinations. Additionally,
Corrections failed to refer offenders to Mental Health at least
six months before their scheduled release dates, as required by
state law. These late referrals shortened the time available for
Mental Health to perform reviews and schedule evaluations.
To handle the high number of offenders referred by Corrections,
Mental Health put into place processes that enable it to determine
whether offenders are possible SVPs before scheduling full
evaluations. We believe that these processes are appropriate
given that Corrections refers offenders without first determining
whether their crimes were predatory and whether the offenders
are likely to be SVPs. Specifically, when Mental Health receives
a referral from Corrections, it first conducts an administrative
review to ensure that it has all of the information necessary to
make a determination. It then conducts a clinical screening—a file
review by a psychologist—to rule out any offender who is not likely
to meet SVP criteria and thus does not warrant a full evaluation.
Between February 2008 and June 2010, Mental Health also used
administrative reviews to identify offenders whom it had previously
screened or evaluated and whose new offenses or violations
were unlikely to change the likelihood that they might be SVPs.
Mental Health rescinded this policy in June 2010. We also noted
that for a short time, Corrections had a similar policy that it also
rescinded. Nonetheless, we believe Mental Health should work with
Corrections to reduce unnecessary referrals.
After completing the administrative reviews and clinical screenings,
Mental Health conducts full evaluations of potential SVPs, a
process that involves face‑to‑face interviews unless offenders
decline to participate. Although we found that in general Mental
Health’s evaluation process appears to have been effective, we
noted that for a time it did not always assign to cases the number of
evaluators that state law requires. After the passage of Jessica’s Law,
Mental Health relied on the opinion of one evaluator rather than
two when concluding that 161 offenders did not meet SVP criteria.
Mental Health’s program manager stated that Mental Health
temporarily followed this practice of using just one evaluator
because it did not have adequate staff to meet its increased
workload. She also indicated that Corrections referred 98 of the
offenders again, and Mental Health determined during subsequent
screenings and evaluations that they did not meet SVP criteria.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

A potential challenge that Mental Health faces in meeting its
increased workload involves the mental health care professionals
who perform its evaluations. Mental Health used between 46 and
77 contractors each year from 2005 through 2010 to perform
evaluations and some clinical screenings. However, when the
state law that expressly permits Mental Health to use contractors
expires in 2012, Mental Health will need to justify its continued use
of contractors, which the State Personnel Board has ruled against
in the past.1 According to a program manager, Mental Health
primarily uses contracted evaluators to perform the evaluations
because the staff psychologists are still completing the necessary
experience and training. Mental Health stated that it has had
difficulty attracting qualified evaluators to state employee positions
because the compensation is not competitive for this specialized
area of forensic mental health clinical work. To remedy the
situation, Mental Health is working to establish a new position that
will provide more competitive compensation. If Mental Health has
not hired sufficient staff by 2012, the program manager stated that it
plans to propose a legislative amendment to extend the authority to
use contractors.
Finally, Mental Health did not submit to the Legislature required
reports about the department’s efforts to hire staff to evaluate
offenders and the impact of Jessica’s Law on the program. Mental
Health did not provide us with a timeline indicating the expected
dates for completing these reports, nor did the department explain
why it had not submitted them. Without the reports, the Legislature
may not have the information necessary for it to provide oversight
and make informed decisions.
Recommendations
To increase efficiency, Corrections should not make unnecessary
referrals to Mental Health. Corrections and Mental Health should
jointly revise the referral process to adhere more closely to the law’s
intent. For example, Corrections should better leverage the time
and work it already conducts by including the following steps in its
referral process:
•	 Determining whether the offender committed a predatory offense.

1	

State law requires Mental Health to use contractors for third and fourth evaluations when the
first two evaluators disagree. The change of law in 2012 will not affect Mental Health’s use of
contractors for this purpose.

3

4

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

•	 Reviewing results from any previous screenings and
evaluations that Mental Health completed and considering
whether the most recent parole violation or offense might
alter the previous decision.
•	 Assessing the risk that an offender will reoffend.
To allow Mental Health sufficient time to complete its screenings
and evaluations, Corrections should improve the timeliness of
its referrals. If it does not achieve a reduction in referrals from
implementing the previous recommendation, Corrections should
begin the referral process earlier before each offender’s scheduled
release date in order to meet its six‑month statutory deadline.
To make certain that it will have enough qualified staff to perform
evaluations, Mental Health should continue its efforts to obtain
approval for a new position classification for evaluators. If the
State Personnel Board approves the new classification, Mental
Health should take steps to recruit qualified individuals as quickly
as possible.
To ensure that the Legislature can provide effective oversight of the
program, Mental Health should complete and submit as soon as
possible its reports to the Legislature about Mental Health’s efforts
to hire state employees to conduct evaluations and the impact of
Jessica’s Law on the program.
Agency Comments
Mental Health indicated that it is taking actions that are responsive
to each of our recommendations. For example, Mental Health
stated it is already working with Corrections to streamline the
referral process to eliminate duplicate effort and increase efficiency.
Corrections indicated that it agrees that improvements can be
made in streamlining the referral process and that it has already
implemented steps to improve the timeliness of its referrals to
Mental Health. Corrections stated that it would address the specific
recommendations in its corrective action plan at 60-day, six‑month,
and one-year intervals.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Introduction
Background
The Legislature created the Sex Offender Commitment Program
(program) in 1996 to target a small but extremely dangerous subset
of sex offenders (offenders) who present a continuing threat to
society because their diagnosed mental disorders predispose them
to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior. State law designates
these offenders as sexually violent predators (SVPs).
The Sexually Violent Predator Act (Act) governs the program. The
Act lists crimes that qualify as sexually violent offenses and
defines predatory to mean acts against strangers, persons of casual
acquaintance, or persons with whom the offender established
relationships primarily for the purposes of victimization. The Act also
requires that SVPs have diagnosed mental disorders that make them
likely to engage in future sexually violent behavior if they do not
receive appropriate treatment and custody. Determining whether
offenders are SVPs and committing them for treatment is a civil rather
than criminal process. Thus, crimes that offenders committed before
passage of the Act can contribute to offenders’ commitment as SVPs.
Since the passage of the Act, certain state laws have further amended
the program. Specifically, in September 2006, Senate Bill 1128
became law and added more crimes to the list of sexually violent
offenses that could cause offenders to qualify as SVPs. More
dramatically, on November 7, 2006, California voters passed
Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law.2 In addition to creating
residency restrictions and global positioning system monitoring
for certain sex offenders, Jessica’s Law added more crimes to the
list of sexually violent offenses, and it also decreased from two to
one the number of victims necessary for the SVP designation. Both
Senate Bill 1128 and Jessica’s Law abolished the previous two‑year
term of civil commitment for an SVP and instead established a
commitment term of indeterminate length that includes yearly
evaluations to determine an SVP’s readiness for release.
The Process for Identifying, Evaluating, and Committing SVPs
The Department of Mental Health (Mental Health) and the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections),
including its Board of Parole Hearings (Parole Board), play
critical roles in identifying, evaluating, and recommending the
commitment of an offender as an SVP. However, a judge or jury

2	

The law was named in memory of Jessica Lunsford, a nine‑year‑old girl from Florida who died
in 2005 as a result of a violent sexual crime committed by a previously convicted sex offender.

5

6

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

at a California superior court makes the final determination of an
offender’s SVP status. Figure 1 shows the relationships among the
steps in the process. If at any point in this process an offender fails
to meet SVP criteria, the offender completes the term of his or her
original sentence or parole.
Figure 1
The Multiagency Process for Committing a Sexually Violent Predator

Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation

Reviews each sex offender
(offender) scheduled for
release or parole and
identifies whether he or
she has a qualifying crime.

Board of
Parole Hearings

Obtains outstanding records
and makes a final decision on
whether to refer an offender
to the Department of Mental
Health (Mental Health).

Department of
Mental Health*

Conducts administrative
review, clinical screening,
and evaluation to determine
whether to recommend an
offender to the designated
county counsel.

Designated county
counsel*†

Decides whether to
accept Mental Health’s
recommendation for
commitment. If accepted,
files petition to commit
the offender.

Superior Court
of California*†

If a judge determines that
there is probable cause,
trial is held to determine whether
an offender is a sexually violent
predator (SVP).

Sources:  Mental Health, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Board of Parole Hearings, and California Welfare and Institutions Code,
Section 6600 et seq.
*	 During this phase of the process, the agency may find that the offender does not meet SVP criteria, in which case the offender completes the term
of his or her original sentence or parole.
†	 Recommendation is made to the designated counsel in the county where the offender was convicted most recently. The designated counsel files
the request to commit in the same county.

Corrections’ Identification of Potential SVPs
State law requires Corrections and its Parole Board to screen
offenders based on whether they committed sexually violent
predatory offenses and on reviews of their social, criminal, and
institutional histories. To complete these screenings, the law
requires Corrections to use a structured screening instrument
developed and updated by Mental Health in consultation with
Corrections. According to state law, when Corrections determines
through this screening process that offenders may be SVPs, it must
refer the offenders to Mental Health for further evaluation at least
six months before the offenders’ scheduled release dates.3
Mental Health’s Evaluation of Potential SVPs
State law requires that Mental Health evaluate as potential SVPs any
offenders whom Corrections refers to Mental Health. It specifies
that for each of these offenders, Mental Health must conduct a full
evaluation consisting of assessments by two mental health professionals
who must be psychiatrists or psychologists. However, in practice,
Mental Health does not conduct an evaluation of every offender
3	

If the offender has been in Corrections’ custody for less than nine months or if judicial or
administrative action modified his or her release date, the sixth‑month timeline does not apply.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

7

July 2011

referred by Corrections; rather, it first conducts an administrative
review and then a clinical screening to determine whether an offender
merits an evaluation. We discuss these administrative reviews and
clinical screenings in more detail later in the report. Figure 2 illustrates
the process that Mental Health uses to determine whether it should
recommend to the district attorneys or the county counsels responsible
for handling SVP cases (designated counsels) the offenders referred by
Corrections for commitment to the program.
Figure 2
Department of Mental Health’s Process for Reviewing, Screening, and Evaluating a Sex Offender

Administrative Review

Clinical Screening

Administrative staff ensure that the
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) has
forwarded relevant medical, criminal
history, and police records. Administrative
staff also obtain records if necessary and
determine that the sex offender (offender)
is available for evaluation.

A clinician (psychologist or
psychiatrist) conducts a file review
and uses a standard risk assessment
tool to determine whether an
offender merits a full evaluation.

NO

X

YES



Evaluation
Following a complete file review plus a face-to-face interview or
behavior observation or both, two evaluators determine separately
whether the offender meets criteria as a sexually violent predator (SVP)

Requests a
petition for commitment





X

X
X

Notifies Corrections
that the offender does not
meet SVP criteria.

Difference-of-Opinion
Evaluation
Two additional contract evaluators determine separately whether
the offender meets SVP criteria.





X

X
X

Sources:  California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 6601 et seq. and program manager for the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender
Commitment Program.

8

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Indicators That a Sex Offender Is a
Sexually Violent Predator
The Department of Mental Health (Mental Health) uses the
following criteria defined in state law and clarified by court
decisions to determine whether a sex offender is a sexually
violent predator (SVP):
•	 The individual has been convicted of a sexually
violent offense, such as rape when committed with
force, threats, or other violence.
•	 The offender suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder.
-	 The law defines diagnosed mental disorder as
including conditions affecting the emotional and
volitional capacity that predispose the person to
committing criminal sexual acts to a degree that the
person is a menace to the health and safety of others.
-	 Most diagnoses involve paraphilia or related
disorders—sexual behavior that is atypical and
extreme and that causes distress to the individual
or harm to others. However, other disorders may
qualify under the law.
•	 The diagnosed mental disorder makes the person
likely to engage in sexually violent, predatory criminal
behavior in the future without treatment and custody.

State law requires Mental Health’s evaluators to
determine whether the offender meets the criteria
for the SVP designation (SVP criteria), which
the text box describes in more detail. If the
first two evaluators agree that the offender meets
the criteria, Mental Health must request a petition
for civil commitment, as discussed in the next
section. If the first two evaluators disagree, the law
requires that Mental Health arrange for
two additional evaluators to perform evaluations.
The two additional evaluators must meet certain
professional criteria and cannot be employees of
the State. If the two additional evaluators agree
that the offender meets the criteria, Mental Health
must request a commitment. If the two additional
evaluators disagree or if they agree that the
offender has not met the criteria, Mental Health
generally cannot request a commitment unless it
believes the evaluator applied the law incorrectly.
The Court’s Commitment and the State’s Treatment
of SVPs 4

When Mental Health’s evaluators conclude that
an offender meets SVP criteria, state law requires
-	 The law defines predatory offenses as acts against
that Mental Health request that the designated
strangers, persons of casual acquaintance, or persons
counsel of the county in which the offender
with whom the offender established relationships
was most recently convicted file a petition in
primarily for the purpose of victimization.
court to commit the offender. If the county’s
-	 Regulations require evaluators to use standardized
designated counsel agrees with Mental Health’s
risk assessment tools and to consider various
recommendation, he or she must file in superior
risk factors to determine the likelihood that an
court a petition for commitment of the offender.
offender will commit future crimes.
If a judge finds probable cause that the offender is
Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ review of case files, interviews
an SVP, he or she orders a trial for a final
of Department of Mental Health staff and evaluators, analysis of
California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 6600 et seq.,
determination of whether the offender is an SVP.
Title 9 of the California Code of Regulations, and California
If the offender or petitioning attorney does not
Supreme Court decisions.
demand a jury trial, the judge conducts the trial
without a jury. During the court proceedings,
offenders are entitled to representation by legal
counsel and medical experts. Each county’s board of supervisors
appoints a designated counsel, the district attorney or county
counsel responsible for handling SVP cases.

4	

We did not audit the designated counsels, the courts, or the actual treatment programs because
they were outside the scope of our review.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

The court commits offenders it finds are SVPs to secure facilities
for treatment, and these commitments have indeterminate terms.
According to Mental Health’s program manager, in May 2011
there were 521 male SVPs and one female SVP committed to state
hospitals. State law requires that Mental Health examine the mental
condition of committed SVPs at least once a year. If Mental Health
determines that offenders either no longer meet SVP criteria or
that less restrictive treatment would better benefit them yet not
compromise the protection of their communities, Mental Health
must ask a court to review their commitments for unconditional
discharge or for conditional release.5 If the court grants conditional
releases to committed SVPs, they will enter community treatment
and supervision under the Conditional Release Program, which
Mental Health operates. According to Mental Health’s program
manager, the department has eight SVPs in the Conditional Release
Program as of May 2011.
Scope and Methodology
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) directed the
Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to review the process that
Corrections and its Parole Board use to refer offenders to Mental
Health as well as Mental Health’s process for evaluating these
offenders to determine whether they qualify as SVPs. Specifically,
the audit committee directed us to determine whether Mental
Health’s process includes a face‑to‑face interview for every
sex offender referred by Corrections, whether Mental Health uses
staff or contractors to perform the evaluations, and whether the
evaluators’ qualifications meet relevant professional standards and
laws and regulations. If we determined that Mental Health uses
contractors, the audit committee directed us to determine when
the practice began and whether using contractors is allowable
under state law. To understand the impact of Jessica’s Law on the
program, the audit committee directed us to identify the number of
offenders that Corrections and its Parole Board referred to Mental
Health in each year since 2006. The audit committee also asked us to
identify the number of referred offenders who received an in‑person
screening by Mental Health, the number screened by Mental
Health through case‑file review only, the number of offenders that
ultimately received a civil commitment to the program, and the
number of offenders released who then reoffended. Finally, the audit
committee asked us to determine whether Mental Health submitted
reports mandated by the Legislature. Table 1 lists the methods we
used to answer these audit objectives.

5	

Nothing in the Act prohibits committed SVPs from asking courts to release them even if the SVPs
do not have a recommendation from Mental Health.

9

10

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

The scope of the audit did not include reviews of the designated
counsels’ efforts or the courts’ processes for committing offenders
as SVPs. The scope also did not include the treatment provided
to offenders at state hospitals or through the Conditional
Release Program.
Table 1
Methods of Addressing Audit Objectives
AUDIT OBJECTIVE

METHOD

Understand the criteria for committing sexually violent predators (SVPs)
under the Sex Offender Commitment Program (program).

Reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and other background materials.

Review the process at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Corrections) and the Board of Parole Hearings for identifying and referring
potential SVPs to the Department of Mental Health (Mental Health).

•  Interviewed key officials from the Classification Services Unit of Corrections’
Division of Adult Institutions and from the Board of Parole Hearings.
•  Reviewed Corrections’ policy manuals.

Understand the process at Mental Health for screening and evaluating
potential SVPs.

•  Interviewed key officials at Mental Health’s Long‑Term Care
Services Division.
•  Interviewed evaluators under contract to Mental Health.
•  Reviewed Mental Health’s policy manuals.

Assess the effectiveness of Corrections’ and Mental Health’s processes for
referring, screening, and evaluating offenders.

Reviewed Mental Health’s case files, clinical screening forms, and written
evaluations of sex offenders (offenders). Review of case files included
Corrections’ referral packets.

Determine the extent to which contractors perform evaluations. Assess
the qualifications of contractors who conduct evaluations and of state
employees who could also conduct evaluations.*

•  Reviewed bidding documentation, contracts, and relevant supporting
documents, as well as personnel files.
•  Reviewed the qualifications required by law.
•  Analyzed data from Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program
Support System (Mental Health’s database).†

Identify the number of offenders whom Corrections referred to
Mental Health. Determine the number of assessments, screenings,
and evaluations that Mental Health performed. Identify the number of
offenders whom courts ultimately committed as SVPs. Determine the
recidivism rate of those not committed as SVPs. Assess the impact of
Jessica’s Law on the program.

Analyzed data from Mental Health’s database and from Corrections’
Offender Based Information System.†

Determine whether Mental Health complied with the requirement to
report to the Legislature the status of its efforts to hire state employees
to replace contractors. Determine whether Mental Health complied with
the requirement to report to the Legislature the impact of Jessica’s Law
on the program.

Requested copies of required reports. Interviewed key officials at
Mental Health and at the California Health and Human Services Agency.

Sources:  Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request #2010‑116 for audit objectives, Bureau of State Audits’ planning and scoping documents, and
analysis of information and documentation identified in the table column titled Method above.
* 	 We did not note any reportable exceptions related to the qualifications of the contractors who conduct evaluations or the state employees who
could also conduct evaluations. The contractors met the qualifications required of them by state law as well as the more stringent requirements that
Mental Health imposed through its competitive contracting process. As the Audit Results section of this report discusses, state employees have rarely
conducted evaluations to date. However, all of the program’s state‑employed consulting psychologists who conduct clinical screenings met the minimum
qualifications specified by the Department of Personnel Administration for their positions.
† 	 We assessed the reliability of the data in these systems and reported our results beginning on page 11.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

To address several of the audit objectives approved by the audit
committee, we relied on data provided by Mental Health and
Corrections. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose
standards we follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and
appropriateness of computer‑processed information. To comply
with this standard, we assessed each system for the purpose for
which we used the data in this report. We assessed the reliability
of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program Support
System (Mental Health’s database) for the purpose of identifying
the number of referrals made by Corrections to Mental Health, the
number of referrals at each step in the SVP commitment process (as
displayed in Table 3 on page 14), and the extent to which contractors
perform evaluations (as displayed in Figure 5 on page 31). Specifically,
we performed data‑set verification procedures and electronic
testing of key data elements, and we assessed the accuracy and
completeness of Mental Health’s database. In performing data‑set
verification and electronic testing of key data elements, we did
not identify any issues. For completeness testing, we haphazardly
sampled 29 referrals and tested to see if these referrals exist in the
database and found no errors. For accuracy testing, we selected a
random sample of 29 referrals and tested the accuracy of 21 key
fields for these referrals. Of the 21 key fields tested we found
three errors in six key fields. Based on our testing and analysis,
we found that Mental Health’s database is not sufficiently reliable
for the purpose of identifying the number of referrals made by
Corrections to Mental Health, the number of referrals at each
step in the SVP commitment process, and the extent to which
contractors perform evaluations. Nevertheless, we present these
data as they represent the best available source of information.
In addition, we assessed the reliability of Corrections’ Offender
Based Information System (Corrections’ database) for the purpose
of identifying the number of referrals that ultimately resulted in an
offender’s being committed as an SVP, and the recidivism rate of
those not committed as SVPs. Specifically, we performed data‑set
verification procedures and electronic testing of key data elements,
and we assessed the accuracy of Corrections’ database. We did
not perform completeness testing because the documents needed
are located at the 33 correctional institutions located throughout
the State, so conducting such testing is impractical. In performing
data‑set verification and electronic testing of key data elements,
we did not identify any issues. For accuracy testing, we selected a
random sample of 29 offenders and tested the accuracy of 12 key
fields related to these offenders and found eight errors. Based on
our testing and analysis, we found that Corrections’ database is of
undetermined reliability to be used for the purpose of identifying
the number of referrals that ultimately resulted in an offender being
committed as an SVP, and to calculate the recidivism rate of those
not committed as SVPs.

11

12

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Audit Results
Although the Department of Mental Health Evaluates Thousands
of Offenders Each Year, the Courts Commit Only a Tiny Percentage
as Sexually Violent Predators
As the Introduction explains, the passage of Jessica’s Law in
2006 resulted in significantly more sex offenders (offenders)
becoming potentially eligible for commitment as sexually violent
predators (SVPs) under the Sex Offender Commitment Program
(program). However, the courts have committed very few of the
thousands of offenders whom the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (Corrections) referred to the Department
of Mental Health (Mental Health) for evaluation. In fact, as
Table 2 shows, the actual number of offenders whom the courts
committed between 2007 and 2010 represent less than 1 percent
of Corrections’ referrals to Mental Health. Even if the courts
committed all of the offenders still awaiting trial, these offenders
would represent less than 2 percent of all referrals. Due to
the limitations of its database, Mental Health did not track the
specific reasons why referred offenders did not meet the criteria
for commitment as SVPs (SVP criteria). Such tracking could help
Mental Health better identify trends.
Table 2
Number of Program Referrals and Commitments
2005 Through 2010
2005

Total referrals
Total commitments†
Commitments as a percentage
of total referrals each year

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010*

512

1,850

8,871

7,338

6,765

6,126

15

27

43

16

3

0

2.93%

1.46%

0.48%

0.22%

0.04%

‑

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s
(Mental Health) Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System (Mental Health’s database)
for 2005 through 2010.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s
database are not sufficiently reliable. However, it is the best available source of this information.
*	 These figures represent data for a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.
†	 These numbers could increase; according to Mental Health’s program manager, about
300 offenders are still awaiting trial.

Jessica’s Law Has Not Resulted in the Commitment of Many
More Offenders
As the Introduction discusses, Jessica’s Law expanded the
population of offenders eligible for the program and thus
substantially increased the number of evaluations that

13

14

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Mental Health has performed each year. Table 3 shows that
since the passage of Jessica’s Law, the total number of
Corrections’ referrals of offenders to Mental Health ballooned
from 1,850 in 2006 to 8,871 in 2007. As a result, the number of
offenders whom Mental Health reviewed or evaluated at each
stage of its process also increased from 2006 to 2007. Mental Health
completed administrative reviews for nearly 96 percent of the
referrals it received from Corrections.6 Mental Health then forwarded
about half of these cases to clinical screenings in which clinicians
determined whether the offenders merited full evaluations.7 The
number of these evaluations that Mental Health performed rose from
594 in 2006 to 2,406 in 2007. Although the number of evaluations
dropped from its high point in 2007, the number was still four times
higher in 2010 than in 2005, the year before Jessica’s Law took effect.
Table 3
Number of Referrals in Each Step of the Sexually Violent Predator Commitment Process
2005 Through 2010
STEP IN THE
COMMITMENT PROCESS

ENTITY

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010*

TOTAL

PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL REFERRALS

Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation

Referrals to Mental Health

512

1,850

8,871

7,338

6,765

6,126

31,462

100.0%

Department of
Mental Health (Mental Health)

Administrative reviews
Clinical screenings†

509

1,448

8,230

7,137

6,738

6,013

30,075

95.6

1

304

4,400

3,537

3,470

3,823

15,535

49.4

Evaluations

217

594

2,406

1,366

966

887

6,436

20.5

48

92

181

99

52

51

523

1.7

Recommendations to
designated counsel
The Court System

Designated counsel petitions

46

88

169

92

39

23

457

1.5

Probable cause hearings

46

88

169

92

38

23

456

1.4

Trials

37

77

150

72

22

4

362

1.2

Offenders committed‡

15

27

43

16

3

0

104

0.3

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System (Mental Health’s
database) for 2005 through 2010.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s database are not sufficiently reliable. However, it
is the best available source of this information.
*	 These figures represent data for a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.
†	 According to Mental Health’s program manager, Mental Health did not implement clinical screenings until sometime in 2006.
‡	 These numbers could increase; according to Mental Health’s program manager, about 300 offenders are still awaiting trial.

6	

The total number of referrals to Mental Health does not agree with the number of referrals
that Mental Health reviewed in part because the department did not consistently record in its
database that it had completed reviews.
7	 According to Mental Health’s program manager, the department introduced the clinical
screening into its process specifically to address the dramatic rise in referred offenders that
Jessica’s Law prompted. We discuss these screenings in more depth later in the report.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Despite the increased number of referrals, as of September 2010,
the relative percentage of offenders whom the courts committed
as SVPs declined each year after the first full year that Jessica’s
Law was in effect. According to Mental Health’s program manager,
about 300 offenders are still awaiting trial. Nevertheless, even if
the courts committed all of those awaiting trial, the total number
committed would still represent a tiny fraction of all referrals
from Corrections. As Table 3 shows, Mental Health screened a
large number of offenders referred by Corrections, indicating that
neither department displayed a lack of effort in identifying eligible
SVPs. However, despite the increased number of evaluations,
Mental Health recommended to the district attorneys or the county
counsels responsible for handling SVP cases (designated counsels)
about the same number of offenders in 2009 as it did in 2005,
before the voters passed Jessica’s Law.
Thus, Jessica’s Law has not resulted in what some expected: the
commitment as SVPs of many more offenders. Although an initial
spike in commitments occurred in 2006 and 2007, this increase
has not been sustained. By expanding the population of potential
SVPs to include offenders with only one victim rather than two,
Jessica’s Law may have unintentionally removed an indirect but
effective filter for offenders who do not qualify as SVPs because they
lack diagnosed mental disorders that predispose them to criminal
sexual acts. In other words, the fact that an offender has had more
than one victim may correlate to the likelihood that he or she has
a diagnosed mental disorder that increases the risk of recidivism.
Additionally, Mental Health’s program manager provided an analysis
it performed of the types of crimes offenders committed who it
recommended for commitment to designated counsels since Jessica’s
Law took effect. This analysis found that, for every recommendation
associated with an offender who committed one of the new crimes
added by Jessica’s Law, Mental Health made four recommendations
related to offenders who committed crimes that would have made
them eligible for commitment before the passage of Jessica’s Law. 
This disparity could suggest that crimes added under Jessica’s Law as
sexually violent offenses correlate less with the likelihood that
offenders who commit such crimes are SVPs than do the crimes
designated in the original Sexually Violent Predator Act.
Because Mental Health Has Not Tracked the Reasons Offenders Did Not
Qualify as SVPs, It Cannot Effectively Identify Trends and Implement
Changes to Increase Efficiency
Although analyzing Mental Health’s data allowed us to determine
the number of referrals at each step of the process, the data lack
sufficient detail for us to determine why specific offenders’ cases
did not progress further in that process. For example, the data did

Jessica’s Law may have
unintentionally removed an indirect
but effective filter for offenders who
do not qualify as SVPs because they
lack diagnosed mental disorders
that predispose them to criminal
sexual acts.

15

16

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Mental Health could not identify
trends throughout the program
indicating why referred offenders
did not meet SVP criteria because
it did not use codes for its
database consistently.

not show the number of offenders that Mental Health declined to
forward to evaluations because the offenders did not have mental
disorders rather than because they did not commit predatory
crimes. Although the database includes a numeric code that can
identify Mental Health’s detailed reason for determining why
an offender does not meet SVP criteria, Mental Health did not
use these codes for the results of its clinical screenings. Instead,
when a clinician determined that the offender did not meet SVP
criteria, the numeric code used indicated only that the result
was a negative screening and was not specific to the clinician’s
conclusions recorded on the clinical screening form. For offenders
whom Mental Health determines do not meet SVP criteria based
on evaluations, Mental Health’s database has detailed codes
available that convey the specific reasons for its decisions on cases.
However, for the period under review, Mental Health did not
consistently use the codes. According to the program manager,
in January 2009 Mental Health stopped using the detailed codes
because it determined that the blend of codes used to describe a
full evaluation were too confusing and did not result in meaningful
data. Because Mental Health did not use the codes consistently, it
could not identify trends throughout the program indicating why
referred offenders did not meet SVP criteria.
We examined some of the conclusions recorded by Mental Health’s
psychologists on their clinical screening forms, and we found that
the psychologists provided specific reasons for their conclusions
that offenders did not meet SVP criteria. For example, some
offenders did not meet the criteria because they were not likely to
engage in sexually violent criminal behavior, while in other cases
the offenders lacked diagnosed mental disorders. Because clinicians
do identify the specific reasons for their conclusions on their
screening forms, Mental Health should capture this information in
its database so that it can inform itself and others about the reasons
offenders throughout the program do not meet SVP criteria.
Additionally, although the documented reasons why individual
offenders are in Corrections’ custody are available to Mental Health,
the department cannot summarize this information across the
program. This situation prevents Mental Health from tracking
the number of offenders that Corrections referred because of
parole violations as opposed to new convictions. According to the
program manager, Mental Health cannot summarize these data
because some of the information appears in the comments or
narrative case notes boxes in Mental Health’s database. As a result,
we used Corrections’ data, not Mental Health’s, to provide the
information in this report about the reasons that offenders were
in Corrections’ custody during the period that we reviewed. By
improving its ability to summarize this type of data, Mental Health
could better inform itself and Corrections about trends in the

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

reasons offenders do not qualify for the program. Mental Health
could then use its knowledge of these trends to improve the
screening tool that Corrections uses to identify potential SVPs. As
of June 2011, Mental Health’s program manager indicated that the
program is submitting requests to the department’s information
technology division to upgrade the database to track this type
of information.
Few Offenders Have Been Convicted of Sexually Violent Offenses
Following a Decision Not to Commit Them
To take one measure of the effectiveness of the program’s referral,
screening, and evaluation processes, we analyzed data from
Corrections and Mental Health to identify offenders who were
not committed as SVPs but who carried out subsequent parole
violations and felonies. In particular, we looked for instances in
which these offenders later perpetrated sexually violent offenses. As
Table 4 on the following page shows, 59 percent of these offenders
whom Corrections released between 2005 and 2010 subsequently
violated the conditions of their paroles. To date, only one offender
who did not meet SVP criteria after Corrections had referred him
to Mental Health was later convicted of a sexually violent offense
during the nearly six‑year period we reviewed. Although higher
numbers of offenders were subsequently convicted of felonies
that were not sexually violent offenses, even those numbers were
relatively low.
Corrections’ Failure to Comply With the Law When Referring
Offenders Has Significantly Increased Mental Health’s Workload
State law outlines Corrections’ role in referring offenders to
Mental Health for evaluation as potential SVPs. Specifically,
Section 6601(b) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code
mandates that Corrections and its Board of Parole Hearings (Parole
Board) screen offenders based on whether they committed sexually
violent predatory offenses and on reviews of their social, criminal,
and institutional histories and then determine if they are likely
to be SVPs. However, in referring offenders, Corrections and the
Parole Board did not screen offenders based on all of these criteria.
As a result, Corrections referred many more offenders to Mental
Health than the law intended. Moreover, Corrections’ process
resulted in a high number of re‑referrals, or referrals of offenders
that Mental Health previously concluded were not SVPs. State law
does not prevent Corrections from considering the results of past
evaluations, and we believe that revisiting the results of offenders’
earlier screenings and evaluations is reasonable even if the law
does not explicitly require Corrections to do so. According to

Only one offender who did not meet
SVP criteria after Corrections had
referred him to Mental Health was
later convicted of a sexually violent
offense during the nearly six‑year
period we reviewed.

17

18

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Mental Health, for fiscal year 2009–10, the State paid $75 for each
clinical screening that its contractors completed and an average of
$3,300 for each evaluation. By streamlining its process, Corrections
could reduce unnecessary referrals and the associated costs.
Table 4
Reasons for Sex Offenders’ Return to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation After a Referral to the
Department of  Mental Health
2005 Through 2010

Number of offenders with first time referrals who the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) subsequently released
Sex Offenders (offenders) who later violated parole†
Percentage of total offenders
Offenders who were later convicted of a new felony†

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010*

TOTAL

231

1,407

5,780

2,834

2,023

1,237

13,512

92

987

4,212

1,434

868

318

7,911

40%

70%

73%

39

89

1

Percentage of total offenders

0%

Offenders who were later convicted of a new sexually violent offense‡
Percentage of total offenders

2005

3%

2%

51%

43%

26%

59%

4

1

0

0%

0%

0%

1%

134

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System
(Mental Health’s database) and from Corrections Offender Based Information System (OBIS) for 2005 through 2010.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s database are not sufficiently reliable. Also, data from
Corrections’ OBIS are of undetermined reliability. However, these are the best available sources of this information.
*	 These figures represent data for a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.
†	 Some overlap may exist among these categories because it is possible for an offender to return to Corrections’ custody more than once and for a different
reason each time.
‡	 The offender in this category is also represented in the New Felony category.

In addition, Corrections and the Parole Board frequently did not
meet the statutory deadline for referring offenders to Mental Health
at least six months before the offenders’ scheduled release from
custody. In 2009 and 2010, the median amount of time for a referral
that Corrections and the Parole Board made to Mental Health
was less than two months before the scheduled release date of
the offender. Because Corrections and its Parole Board referred
many offenders with little time remaining before their scheduled
release dates, Mental Health may have had to rush its clinical
screening process and therefore may have caused it to evaluate
more offenders than would have otherwise been necessary.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Corrections Refers Offenders to Mental Health Without First Determining
Whether They Are Likely to Be SVPs
As discussed previously, state law defines the criteria that
Corrections and its Parole Board must use to screen offenders
to determine if they are likely to be SVPs before referring the
offenders to Mental Health. Specifically, state law mandates that
Corrections must consider whether an offender committed a
sexually violent predatory offense, and the law defines predatory
acts as those directed toward a stranger, a person of casual
acquaintance, or a person with whom an offender developed a
relationship for the primary purpose of victimizing that individual.
The law also specifies that Corrections and the Parole Board must
use a structured screening instrument developed and updated
by Mental Health in consultation with Corrections to determine
if an offender is likely to be an SVP before referring him or her.
Further, state law requires that when Corrections determines
through the screening that the person is likely to be an SVP, it must
refer the offender to Mental Health for further evaluation.
However, during the time covered by our audit, Corrections
and its Parole Board referred all offenders convicted of sexually
violent offenses to Mental Health without assessing whether those
offenses or any others committed by the offender were predatory
in nature or whether the offenders were likely to be SVPs based
on other information that Corrections could consider. Instead,
it left these determinations solely to Mental Health. Moreover,
although Corrections and Mental Health consulted about
the referral process, the process Corrections used fell short of the
structured screening instrument specified by law. According to
the chief of the classification services unit (classification unit chief )
for Corrections’ Division of Adult Institutions and the former
program operations chief deputy for the Parole Board (parole board
deputy),8 Corrections and the Parole Board did not determine if
a qualifying offense or any other crime was predatory when they
made a referral. Our legal counsel advised us that according to
the plain language of Section 6601(b) of the California Welfare
and Institutions Code, Corrections and the Parole Board must
determine whether the person committed a predatory offense and
whether the person is likely to be an SVP before his or her referral
to Mental Health.
Because Corrections did not consider whether offenders’ crimes
were predatory and whether the offenders were likely to be
SVPs, it referred many more offenders to Mental Health than
the law intended. This high number of referrals unnecessarily
8	

Subsequent to our interview, this official moved to Corrections’ Division of Adult Institutions.

Although Corrections and
Mental Health consulted about
the referral process, the process
Corrections used fell short of the
structured screening instrument
specified by law.

19

20

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

increased Mental Health’s workload at a cost to the State. We
found several referrals in our sample involving offenders who did
not commit predatory offenses. For example, we reviewed cases in
which Corrections referred an offender for a sexual crime against
his own child, and another for a sexual crime committed against the
offender’s own grandchild. Although these crimes were serious, they
did not meet the law’s definition of predatory because the victims
were not strangers or mere acquaintances.

Although Corrections is not
required to consider risk assessment
scores to determine an offender’s
likelihood of reoffending when
making referrals, doing so would
eliminate duplicate efforts and
reduce Mental Health’s workload.

Mental Health and Corrections’ current processes also miss
an opportunity to make the referral process more efficient by
eliminating duplicate efforts. When considering whether an
offender requires an evaluation, Mental Health’s clinical screeners
use a risk assessment tool—California’s State Authorized Risk
Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (STATIC‑99R)—as part of
determining the individual’s risk of reoffending. Corrections uses
this same tool in preparation for an adult male offender’s release
from prison. According to the parole board deputy, Corrections’
Division of Adult Parole Operations completes a STATIC‑99R
assessment approximately eight months before the offender’s
scheduled parole. Although state law does not specifically require
Corrections to consider the STATIC‑99R scores as part of its
screening when making referrals to Mental Health, doing so would
eliminate duplicate efforts and reduce Mental Health’s workload
because Corrections would screen out, or not refer, those offenders
it determines have a low risk of reoffending. This type of screening
would reduce costs at Mental Health because fewer clinical
screenings would be necessary.
When we discussed the possibility of Corrections using the
STATIC‑99R as part of its screening of offenders before it refers
them to Mental Health, the parole board deputy stated that he was
unaware that Corrections ever considered this approach. However,
the California High Risk Sex Offender and Sexually Violent Predator
Task Force—a gubernatorial advisory body whose membership
included representatives from Corrections, Mental Health,
and local law enforcement, among others—recommended in a
December 2006 report that Corrections incorporate STATIC‑99R
into its process. According to the classification unit chief,
Corrections is researching the status of its efforts regarding the task
force’s recommendation.
Many of Corrections’ Referrals Involve Offenders Whom Mental Health
Has Already Determined Do Not Qualify as SVPs
One of the most useful actions Corrections could take to increase
its efficiency when screening offenders for possible referral to
Mental Health is to consider the outcome of previous referrals.

21

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Corrections’ screening process does not consider whether
Mental Health has already determined that an offender does
not meet the criteria to be an SVP. As a result, these re‑referrals
significantly affect Mental Health’s caseload. As Table 5 shows,
45 percent of Corrections’ referrals to Mental Health since 2005
were for offenders whom it had previously referred and whom
Mental Health had concluded did not meet SVP criteria. Many of
these cases had progressed only as far as the clinical screenings
before Mental Health determined that the offenders did not meet
SVP criteria. Table 5 also shows that for 18 percent, or 5,772, of
these re‑referral cases, Mental Health had previously performed
evaluations and concluded that the offenders did not qualify as
SVPs. For these 5,772 re‑referral cases, Mental Health’s previous
evaluations occurred within one year for 39 percent, or 2,277, of the
cases. Another 30 percent took place within two years.
Table 5
Number of Referrals to the Department of Mental Health for Sex Offenders Who Previously Did Not Meet Sexually
Violent Predator Criteria
2005 Through 2010

Total referrals
Number of referrals of sex offenders (offenders) whom the Department
of Mental Health (Mental Health) had previously found did not qualify
as sexually violent predators (SVPs) without evaluations
Percentage of total referrals
Number of referrals of offenders who previously received evaluations
and did not qualify as SVPs
Percentage of total referrals
Total number of referrals of offenders who previously did not meet
SVP criteria
Percentage of total referrals

2005

2006

512

31
6%
164
32%
195
38%

2007

2008

2009

2010*

TOTAL

1,850

8,871

7,338

6,765

6,126

31,462

53

1,254

2,306

2,511

2,382

8,537

3%
167
9%
220
12%

14%
721
8%
1,975
22%

31%
1,448
20%
3,754
51%

37%
1,640
24%
4,151
61%

39%
1,632
27%
4,014
66%

27%
5,772
18%
14,309
45%

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System
(Mental Health’s database) for 2005 through 2010.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s database are not sufficiently reliable. However, it is
the best available source of this information.
*	 These figures represent numbers for a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.

To illustrate the magnitude of this re‑referral problem, we noted
that Corrections’ approximately 31,500 referrals to Mental Health
for the period under review represented nearly 15,600 offenders. Of
these individuals, Corrections referred almost half, or 7,031 offenders,
to Mental Health on at least two occasions. In fact, Figure 3 on the
following page shows that Corrections referred 8 percent of offenders
between five and 12 times between 2005 and 2010.

22

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Figure 3
Number of Times the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Referred
Sex Offenders to the Department of Mental Health
2005 Through 2010
Sex Offenders (offenders) referred
between five and 12 times —1,265 (8%)
Offenders referred
four times —1,034 (7%)

Offenders referred
three times —1,757 (11%)
Offenders referred
once— 8,555 (55%)
Offenders referred
twice— 2,975 (19%)

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s
Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System (Mental Health’s database) for 2005 through 2010.
Notes:  The data for 2010 represent figures for a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.
As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s
database are not sufficiently reliable. However, it is the best available source of this information.

Although the law does not specifically require Corrections
to consider the outcome of offenders’ previous referrals in its
screening process, we believe it is reasonable in these cases
for Corrections to consider whether the nature of a parole
violation or a new crime might modify an evaluator’s opinion.
This consideration would be in line with the law’s direction that
Corrections refer only those offenders likely to be SVPs based on
their social, institutional, and criminal histories. Many previously
referred offenders are, in fact, unlikely to be SVPs given Mental
Health’s past assessments that they did not meet SVP criteria. By
considering whether previously referred offenders warrant new
referrals, Corrections could eliminate duplicate efforts and reduce
unnecessary workload and costs.
Among all referrals made during the period we reviewed,
63 percent involved offenders in Corrections’ custody due to
parole violations. Although not all parole violators could be
screened out of re‑referral through a process that considers the
nature of the parole violations, many could be. When we discussed
with Mental Health whether it had asked Corrections to cease
making re‑referrals in those instances in which parole violations
were not new sex‑related offenses, Mental Health provided us

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

with a copy of a September 2007 Corrections’ memorandum to
its staff stating that Mental Health and Corrections had agreed
to streamline the referral procedures for parole violators. The
memorandum instructed Corrections’ staff not to refer offenders if
Mental Health had previously determined that the offenders
were not SVPs and if the offenders were currently in custody for
specified parole violations that Mental Health’s psychologists
had determined from a clinical standpoint would not change
the offenders’ risk of committing new sexual offenses. However,
five months later, another Corrections’ memorandum rescinded
these revised procedures. Corrections’ classification unit chief
told us that although she was not with the program at the time,
she believed that the former Governor’s Office had instructed the
departments to discontinue using the streamlined process because
it did not comply with the law. We asked Corrections for more
details about this legal determination, but Corrections could not
provide any additional information. According to our legal counsel,
a streamlined process that includes consideration of the outcomes
of previous referrals and the nature of parole violations is allowed
under state law.
Corrections’ Failure to Refer Offenders Within Statutory Time Frames
May Force Mental Health to Rush Its Screening Process
State law requires that Corrections refer offenders to Mental Health
at least six months before their scheduled release dates. However,
according to the median amount of time for referrals displayed
in Figure 4 on the following page, Corrections did not meet this
deadline for a significant portion of referrals during the three years
for which Corrections and Mental Health were able to provide
data to us.9 Corrections’ procedure manual states that it will screen
offenders nine months before their scheduled release dates unless
it receives them with less than nine months to their release, in
which case the department has alternate procedures. This policy, if
followed, should ensure that Corrections forwards cases to Mental
Health at least six months before the offenders’ release, as required
by law. However, the parole board deputy noted that issues such as
workload and missing documents can prevent Corrections from
making these referrals in a timely manner.

9	

State law does not apply this requirement for offenders whose release dates are changed
by judicial or administrative actions or for offenders in Corrections’ custody for less than
nine months. Although we could not exclude from our data analysis those offenders whose
release dates were altered by judicial or administrative actions, our review of case files at
Mental Health revealed no obvious instances in which such alterations occurred. This observation
suggests that judicial or administrative actions were not the primary cause of Corrections’ lack
of timeliness. We excluded from our analysis those offenders who, as of the date of their referral,
had been in Corrections’ custody for less than nine months.

According to our legal counsel, a
streamlined process that includes
consideration of the outcomes of
previous referrals and the nature
of parole violations is allowed
under state law.

23

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Figure 4
Median Number of Days Between the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Referrals to the Department of Mental Health
and Sex Offenders’ Scheduled Release Dates at Time of Referral

Referral Year*

24

71

2008

38

2009

35

2010
180

90

0

Median Number of Days
Between Referrals and Scheduled Release Dates†
Referrals should be receieved 180 days
before the offenders’ scheduled release date.

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s
Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System (Mental Health’s database) and the
Offender Based Information System (OBIS) from the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) for 2008 through 2010.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental
Health’s database are not sufficiently reliable. Also, data from Corrections’ OBIS are of
undetermined reliability. However, these are the best available sources of this information.
*	 Data analysis September 16, 2008, through September 2010.
†	 Analysis does not include sex offenders who were in Corrections’ custody for less than
nine months as of the date of their referral.

Late referrals shorten the amount of time available for Mental Health
to evaluate offenders properly. In fact, in one case we reviewed, Mental
Health received the referral one day before the offender’s scheduled release.
In another case, Mental Health received a referral for an offender 11 days
before his scheduled release. Although Mental Health can request that the
Parole Board place a temporary hold on an offender’s release to extend
the amount of time that Mental Health has to evaluate him or her, state law
requires that the Parole Board have good cause for extending the offender’s
stay in custody. Mental Health’s program manager stated that in practice,
Mental Health requests a hold from the Parole Board when it determines that
it cannot complete an evaluation by the offender’s scheduled release date.
The program manager also stated that sometimes the time remaining before
an offender’s release is so short that the department must rush an offender
through a clinical screening in order to ensure that it can request a hold.
Although Mental Health Did Not Conduct Full Evaluations of All
Referred Offenders, It Generally Ensured That Offenders Were
Properly Screened and Evaluated
Our review indicated that Mental Health’s process for determining
whether it should perform full evaluations of referred offenders
has been generally effective and appropriate. As discussed earlier,

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

the number of offenders whom Corrections referred to Mental
Health increased significantly after the passage of Jessica’s Law.
To manage this workload, Mental Health used the administrative
reviews to ensure that it has all of the information necessary to
perform clinical screenings, which it uses to determine whether
offenders warrant full evaluations. Between February 2008 and
June 2010, Mental Health also used the administrative reviews as
opportunities to identify offenders who did not warrant clinical
screenings because Mental Health had evaluated these offenders
previously and had determined that they did not meet SVP
criteria. Mental Health rescinded this policy, and, as previously
discussed, Corrections also rescinded its similar policy for
screening out certain offenders from re‑referral. However, we
believe that Mental Health should work with Corrections to reduce
unnecessary referrals.
Mental Health has for the most part conducted evaluations of
offenders effectively; however, for a time, it did not always assign
the required number of evaluators to cases. Specifically, Mental
Health’s data indicates that it did not arrange for two evaluators
to conduct the evaluations for 161 offenders, as state law directs.
In addition, for at least a year prior to August 2008, Mental
Health did not assign a fourth evaluator to each case in which
the first two evaluators disagreed as to whether the offender
met SVP criteria and in which the third evaluator also did not
believe that the offender met SVP criteria. In cases requiring
a third and fourth evaluator to determine whether an offender
meets SVP criteria, state law may need clarification. Nonetheless,
we believe that the selective use of a fourth evaluator in those
instances when the third evaluator concludes the offender meets
SVP criteria is a cost‑effective approach. Because the third and
fourth evaluators must both agree that the offender meets SVP
criteria, the conclusion of the fourth evaluation is relevant only if
the third evaluator concludes that the offender meets SVP criteria.
Mental Health’s Administrative Review and Clinical Screening Processes
Appear Prudent
As the Introduction discusses, state law specifies that Mental
Health must conduct a full evaluation of every offender Corrections
refers to it. However, in practice, Mental Health conducts an
administrative review and clinical screening before performing
a full evaluation. Although state law does not specify that
Mental Health should perform these preliminary processes, doing
so appears to save the State money without unduly affecting public
safety because these procedures allow Mental Health to save the
cost of evaluations for offenders who do not meet SVP criteria.

We believe that Mental Health
should work with Corrections to
reduce unnecessary referrals.

25

26

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

According to Mental Health’s program manager, when Corrections
began referring more offenders in response to Jessica’s Law, the
number of incomplete and invalid referrals also increased.
The program manager stated that Mental Health implemented the
administrative reviews and clinical screenings as quality
improvement measures. Specifically, the administrative review
ensures that each referral includes all the necessary documentation,
including police records, and that the offender is available for
evaluation. During the clinical screening, a clinician reviews the
offender’s file and determines whether the offender merits an
evaluation. This screening is necessary because Corrections neither
assesses whether an offender committed a predatory offense or is
likely to re‑offend, nor evaluates the nature of an offender’s parole
violation before it makes a referral.
Additionally, Mental Health implemented a streamlined process
for addressing re‑referred offenders. As directed in Mental
Health’s policy that was in effect between February 2008 and
June 2010, Mental Health’s case managers could decline to
schedule clinical screenings for offenders whom Mental Health
had previously screened or evaluated and determined did not
meet SVP criteria if the case managers determined the offenders
had not committed new crimes, sex‑related parole violations, or
any other offenses that might contribute to a change in their mental
health diagnoses. The policy provided screening guidelines for
staff to consider and examples of factors that demonstrated when
a case did not warrant a clinical screening and for which Mental
Health—after its administrative review—could notify Corrections
that the offender did not meet SVP criteria.
Our analysis of Mental Health’s data showed that between 2005 and
2010, Mental Health decided that half of the roughly 31,500 referrals
did not warrant clinical screenings. Our review of six specific cases
suggests that Mental Health followed its own policy and notified
Corrections that the offenders did not meet SVP criteria when
case managers determined that the nature of the parole violations
would not change the outcomes of previous screenings or the
evaluations of re‑referred offenders. For example, in three of these
cases, Mental Health’s case managers noted that parole violations
were not related to sexual behavior and would not change the
most recent evaluations’ results. These evaluations had concluded
that each of these offenders lacked an important element of SVP
criteria: a diagnosable mental disorder or the likelihood that
the offender would engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.
When we asked Mental Health why it had developed the policy
allowing case managers to decide that some re‑referred cases did
not warrant clinical screenings, the program manager explained
that clinical determinations are highly unlikely to alter if there are
no new issues that are substantive or related to sexual offenses.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Therefore, to streamline the already overburdened process, Mental
Health believed it was within the law and in the public interest to
conduct only administrative reviews for certain offenders. However,
according to the program manager, Mental Health implemented
a more in‑depth review due to several high‑profile sexual
assault cases.
As explained previously, for a brief time Corrections and Mental
Health had an agreement that they designed to eliminate
unnecessary re‑referrals. However, apparently in response to
concerns from the former Governor’s Office, Corrections stopped
using this agreement. Although Mental Health could reinstitute
its administrative review policy, we believe the better course of
action is for Mental Health to work with Corrections to revise its
current screening and referral process so that Corrections considers
STATIC‑99R scores, previous clinical screening and evaluation
results, and the nature of any parole violations before referring
cases to Mental Health. Moreover, our legal counsel believes
that the law allows such a process. In light of the volume of referrals
to Mental Health, such revisions to the screening and referral
process would be a reasonable, responsible way to reduce the costs
and duplicative efforts associated with these referrals.
Although Mental Health Did Not Always Assign the Required Number of
Evaluators, It Properly Recommended Offenders to Designated Counsels
When Warranted
Our review of 30 cases in which Mental Health completed
evaluations of offenders found that Mental Health generally
followed its processes for conducting evaluations and asked the
designated counsels to request commitments when warranted.
Mental Health based its requests to the designated counsels on
its evaluators’ thorough assessments, which included face‑to‑face
interviews with offenders unless they declined to participate.
The evaluators also conducted extensive record reviews and used
evaluation procedures that applied industry standard diagnostic
criteria to decide whether mental disorders were present and
employed risk assessment tools to determine the offenders’ risk
of re‑offending.
Although Mental Health properly recommended that designated
counsels request commitments when warranted, Mental Health’s
data show that it did not always assign the proper number of
evaluators to assess offenders. As the Introduction explains, state
law requires Mental Health to designate two evaluators to evaluate
offenders likely to be SVPs. When two evaluators disagree about
whether an offender meets the criteria for the program, state law
requires Mental Health to arrange for two additional evaluators

Mental Health’s data show that
it did not always assign the
proper number of evaluators to
assess offenders.

27

28

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

We found that in 161 instances
Mental Health arranged for only
one initial evaluator—rather
than the required two—to assess
each offender before notifying
Corrections that the offender did
not meet SVP criteria.

to assess the offender. However, when we examined some case
files and analyzed Mental Health’s data for January 2005 through
September 2010, we found that in 161 instances Mental Health
arranged for only one initial evaluator to assess each offender before
notifying Corrections that the offender did not meet SVP criteria.
The data are also supported by our case file reviews, in which we
found one instance where Mental Health notified Corrections that
an offender did not meet SVP criteria based on a single evaluator’s
assessment, which found that the offender did not have a
diagnosable mental disorder.
When we asked Mental Health about these 161 referrals, the
program manager indicated that for a short time after the passage
of Jessica’s Law, Mental Health implemented a process stipulating
that if the first evaluator determined that the offender did not
have a diagnosable mental disorder, Mental Health did not refer
the offender to a second evaluator. The program manager stated
that the passage of Jessica’s Law had not allowed Mental Health
sufficient time to put in place the infrastructure and resources
needed to respond to the magnitude of referrals it received from
Corrections during the period that we reviewed. Mental Health
acknowledged that this process, which it communicated to staff
verbally, began in October 2006 and ended in June 2007, after
it had obtained and trained a sufficient number of evaluators.
The program manager provided a list of offenders and indicated
that Corrections later re‑referred 98 of the 161 offenders that had
previously received only one evaluation. She indicated that Mental
Health determined either during subsequent clinical screenings or
during evaluations that these 98 offenders did not meet SVP criteria
and that the remaining offenders have not been referred to Mental
Health again.
We also found that Mental Health did not always assign
two additional evaluators to resolve differences of opinion
between the first two evaluators about referred offenders;
however, we believe that this practice had no impact on public
safety. Specifically, our analysis of Mental Health’s data shows
that in 254 closed referrals, Mental Health arranged for a
third evaluator only and not for a fourth. According to e‑mail
correspondence provided by the program manager, for at least a
year before August 2008, Mental Health’s practice was to assign
a fourth evaluator to a case only if a third evaluator concluded
that the offender met SVP criteria. According to the program
manager, the former chief of the program rescinded this practice
in August 2008 after verbal consultation with the department’s
assistant chief counsel. E‑mail correspondence from the former
chief of the program to staff indicates that this practice did not
comply with state law.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

From both a legal and budgetary perspective, we believe that the
practice of obtaining a fourth evaluation only if a third evaluator
concludes that the offender is an SVP is a practical way to
manage the program. If the third evaluator believes the offender
is not an SVP, state law generally would not allow Mental
Health to recommend the offender for commitment even if the
fourth evaluator concludes that the offender meets the necessary
criteria. According to Mental Health’s own analysis, the average cost
of an evaluation completed by a contractor for fiscal year 2009–10
was $3,300; therefore, the department’s avoiding unnecessary
fourth evaluations could result in cost savings. Our legal counsel
advised us that the law is open to interpretation on this issue. Thus,
we suggest that Mental Health reinstitute this practice of preventing
unnecessary fourth evaluations either by issuing a regulation or by
seeking a statutory change to clarify the law.
Mental Health Has Used Contractors to Perform Its Evaluations Due to
Limited Success in Increasing Its Staff
Because it has made limited progress in hiring and training
more staff, Mental Health has used contractors to complete
the evaluations of sex offenders whom it has considered for the
program. According to the program manager, the evaluation
of sex offenders is a highly specialized field, and Mental Health
believes it has not had staff with the skills and experience
necessary to perform the evaluations. Mental Health reported
to us that as a result, for fiscal years 2005–06 through 2009–10,
it paid nearly $49 million to contractors who performed work
related to its evaluations of offenders. Although current state law
expressly authorizes Mental Health to use contractors for all types
of evaluations, this permission will expire on January 1, 2012.10
Because Mental Health has had difficulty in hiring staff, acquiring
a sufficient work force to conduct its evaluations is likely to pose a
significant challenge when the law expires.
In April 2007 an employee union requested that the State Personnel
Board review Mental Health’s evaluator contracts for compliance
with the California Government Code, Section 19130(b), which
allows contracting only when those contracts meet certain
conditions, such as that state employees cannot perform the
work. The State Personnel Board ruled against Mental Health,
finding that Mental Health had not adequately demonstrated that
state employees could not perform the tasks that it had assigned
10	

Although express permission for contractors to perform all types of evaluations expires on
January 1, 2012, state law will continue to require that Mental Health use contractors to perform
the difference‑of‑opinion evaluations. As the Introduction details, state law specifically mandates
that these evaluators cannot be employees of the State.

We suggest that Mental Health
reinstitute the practice of
preventing unnecessary
fourth evaluations either by
issuing a regulation or by seeking a
statutory change to clarify the law.

29

30

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

to contractors. Because of the ruling, the State Personnel Board
disapproved Mental Health’s contracts effective 90 days after its
March 2008 decision.11 In September 2008, to provide Mental
Health with the capacity to perform the required evaluations, the
Legislature amended state law to give the department express
permission to use contractors for all types of evaluations until
January 1, 2011. The Legislature later extended this authorization
until January 1, 2012.12

Mental Health’s reliance on
contractors has led to costs that are
higher than if it had been able to
hire and use its own staff.

According to the program manager, Mental Health believes that no
current state employee position requires minimum qualifications
sufficient to perform the function of the SVP evaluator. As
evidenced by Mental Health’s requirements for its contract
evaluators, the department believes evaluators need specific
experience in diagnosing the sexually violent population and at
least eight hours of expert witness testimony related to SVP cases.
Currently, as the program manager explained, Mental Health does
not consider state‑employed consulting psychologists qualified to
perform evaluations, although it has provided two employees with
additional training, mentoring, and experience to prepare them
to perform evaluations. These two employees have completed
three evaluations but have yet to provide expert witness testimony.
The program manager also stated that Mental Health has had
difficulty hiring consulting psychologists with qualifications similar
to those of the contracted evaluators because the compensation for
the consulting psychologist positions is not competitive with what
is available to psychologists in private practice for this specialized
area of forensic mental health clinical work. Mental Health
completed a salary analysis in March 2010 that found that the
average hourly pay for the contractors to perform evaluations and
clinical screenings is approximately $124 per hour, compared to the
$72 per hour—including benefits—that state‑employed consulting
psychologists earn.
Mental Health’s reliance on contractors has led to costs that are
higher than if it had been able to hire and use its own staff. As
Figure 5 indicates, from January 2005 through September 2010,
Mental Health used between 46 and 77 contractors each year to
complete its workload of evaluations and clinical screenings, while
some or all of its seven positions for state‑employed consulting
psychologists were at times vacant. Mental Health reported
to us that for fiscal years 2005–06 through 2009–10, it spent
nearly $73 million on the contractors. This amount is equivalent
11	

The State Personnel Board’s decision said that it is permissible for Mental Health to use
contractors to perform difference-of-opinion evaluations.
12	 If the director of Mental Health notifies the Legislature and the Department of Finance that it has
hired a sufficient number of state employees before this date, the express permission will end
earlier than January 1, 2012.

31

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

to an average of roughly $188,000 per year per contractor. By
comparison, for fiscal year 2009–10, each consulting psychologist
earned $110,000 (excluding benefits). The $73 million included
payments for activities that the contractors performed separate
from the initial screening and evaluation process, such as providing
expert witness testimony in court and updating evaluations for
offenders awaiting trial or already committed as SVPs. The amount
also included approximately $49 million related to the evaluation
of offenders whom Corrections referred to Mental Health. The
reported estimate of costs for clinical screenings performed by
contractors during the same period was almost $169,000.13
Figure 5
Number of Contractors and State‑Employed Consulting Psychologists Used by the Department of Mental Health
2005 Through 2010

Contractors who
complete evaluations

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

46

48

77

75

75

68*

Authorized consulting
psychologist positions
Filled consulting
psychologist positions

7

1
1

0

1 3 4

5

6

5

7

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of data collected from the Department of Mental Health’s Sex Offender Commitment Program Support System
(Mental Health’s database); summary of the number of authorized positions for the consulting psychologist classification and the number of employees
filling those positions by year provided by the program manager of the Sex Offender Commitment Program.
Note:  As discussed in the Scope and Methodology section of this report, data from Mental Health’s database are not sufficiently reliable. However, it is
the best available source of this information.
*	 The data for 2010 contractors represents a partial year—January 2010 through September 2010.

To address the difficulty in hiring qualified evaluators as state
employees, Mental Health is working to establish a new evaluator
classification. The proposed position is a permanent‑intermittent
position—a state classification in which the employee works
periodically or for a fluctuating portion of a full‑time work schedule
and is paid by the hour. Mental Health plans for these employees
to work as its caseload requires. This proposed new classification
offers a more competitive compensation than does the standard
consulting psychologist position, so Mental Health believes
that it will now attract more individuals as potential employees.
The qualifications for the new classification are similar to the
requirements placed on Mental Health’s current contractors who
perform evaluations. Mental Health anticipates that the State

13	

Contractors were paid $75 per clinical screening. This cost does not cover the screenings
performed by the state‑employed consulting psychologists.

32

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Personnel Board will consider its request for the new position
classification in August 2011. If the State Personnel Board approves
the classification, Mental Health plans initially to seek authority
for 10 positions and then increase its positions by 10 in each
subsequent fiscal year until eventually it can rely completely on
employees to perform the evaluations. The only exceptions to
Mental Health’s reliance on state‑employed evaluators will occur
when it must use contractors to provide difference‑of‑opinion
evaluations, as required by law. If it has not hired sufficient staff
by 2012, the program manager stated that Mental Health plans
to propose a legislative amendment to extend its authorization to
use contractors.
Mental Health Has Not Reported to the Legislature About Its Efforts
to Hire State Employees as Evaluators or About the Impact of
Jessica’s Law on the Program
Mental Health has not submitted required reports about its efforts
to hire qualified state employees to conduct evaluations of potential
SVPs and about the impact of Jessica’s Law on the program.
State law requires Mental Health to report semiannually to the
Legislature on its progress in hiring qualified state employees to
complete evaluations. Although the first of these reports was due
by July 10, 2009, Mental Health has yet to submit any reports. In
addition, state law required Mental Health to provide a report to
the Legislature by January 2, 2010, on the effect of Jessica’s Law
on the program’s costs and on the number of offenders evaluated
and committed for treatment. However, Mental Health also failed
to submit this report. In May 2011 Mental Health’s external audit
coordinator stated that the reports were under development or
review. Mental Health did not explain why the reports were late
or specify a time frame for the reports’ completion.
The Legislature and other interested
parties may have been unaware
that Mental Health has made little
progress in hiring state employees
as evaluators of offenders and
how profoundly Jessica’s Law has
affected Mental Health’s workload.

Because Mental Health has not submitted the required reports,
the Legislature and other interested parties may have been
unaware that Mental Health has made little progress in hiring state
employees as evaluators of offenders. The Legislature and other
interested parties may also have been unaware of how profoundly
Jessica’s Law has affected Mental Health’s workload. As a result, the
Legislature may not have had the information necessary to provide
appropriate oversight and to make informed decisions.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Recommendations
To enable it to track trends and streamline processes, Mental
Health should expand the use of its database to capture more
specific information about the offenders whom Corrections
refers to it and the outcomes of the screenings and evaluations
that it conducts.
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. For example, Corrections should better
leverage the time and work it already conducts by including the
following steps in its referral process:
•	 Determining whether the offender committed a
predatory offense.
•	 Reviewing results from any previous screenings and
evaluations that Mental Health completed and considering
whether the most recent parole violation or offense might
alter the previous decision.
•	 Using STATIC‑99R to assess the risk that an offender
will reoffend.
To allow Mental Health sufficient time to complete its screenings
and evaluations, Corrections should improve the timeliness
of its referrals. If it does not achieve a reduction in referrals
from implementing the previous recommendation, Corrections
should begin the referral process earlier than nine months before
offenders’ scheduled release dates in order to meet its six‑month
statutory deadline.
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.
To ensure that it will have enough qualified staff to perform
evaluations, Mental Health should continue its efforts to obtain
approval for a new position classification for evaluators. If the State
Personnel Board approves the new classification, Mental Health
should take steps to recruit qualified individuals as quickly as
possible. Additionally, Mental Health should continue its efforts to
train its consulting psychologists to conduct evaluations.

33

34

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

To ensure that the Legislature can provide effective oversight of
the program, Mental Health should complete and submit as soon
as possible its reports to the Legislature about Mental Health’s
efforts to hire state employees to conduct evaluations and about the
impact of Jessica’s Law on the program.
We conducted this audit under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543
et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives
specified in the scope section of the report. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor
Date:	

July 12, 2011

Staff:	
	
	
	

Tammy Lozano, CPA, CGFM, Project Manager
Sean R. Gill, MPP
Bob Harris, MPP
Tram Thao Truong

Legal Counsel:	

Scott A. Baxter, JD

IT Audit Support:	 Michelle J. Baur, CISA, Audit Principal
	
Richard W. Fry, MPA
Consultants:	

Loretta Hall, CISA, CISSP
Celina Knippling, CPA

	
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact
Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

(Agency response provided as text only.)
California Department of Mental Health
1600 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
June 21, 2011
Elaine M. Howle, CPA
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
The California Department of Mental Health (DMH) has prepared its response to the draft report entitled
“Department of Mental Health and Corrections and Rehabilitation: Streamlining the Process for Identifying
Potential Sexually Violent Predators Would Reduce Unnecessary or Duplicative Work”. The DMH appreciates
the work performed by the Bureau of State Audits and the opportunity to respond to the draft report.
Please contact Vallery Walker, Internal Audits, at (916) 651-3880 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Cliff Allenby)
CLIFF ALLENBY
Acting Director
Enclosure

35

36

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Response to the Bureau of State Audits
Draft Report Entitled
“Department of Mental Health and Corrections and Rehabilitation: Streamlining the Process for Identifying
Potential Sexually Violent Predators Would Reduce Unnecessary or Duplicative Work”
Recommendation:	

To enable it to track trends and streamline processes, the Department of Mental
Health (Mental Health) should expand the use of its database to capture more
specific information about the offenders the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (Corrections) refers to it and the outcomes of the screenings and
evaluations it conducts.

Response:	

Mental Health has identified database enhancements that will enable the Sex
Offender Commitment Program (SOCP) to track more specific information related to
victims, offenders, offenses, screening results, evaluations results, referral decisions
and actions taken by the District Attorneys and the courts. These changes will enable
Mental Health to track trends and streamline processes.

Recommendation:	

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. For example, Corrections should better leverage the time
and work it already conducts by including the following steps in its referral process:
•  Determine whether the offender committed a predatory offense.
•  Review the result of any previous screenings and evaluations Mental Health
completed and consider whether the most recent parole violation or offense might
alter the previous decision.
•  Use the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders to assess the risk
that an offender will reoffend.

Response:	

Mental Health and Corrections are already working together to further streamline
the referral process to eliminate duplicative effort and increase efficiency.

Recommendation:	

To ensure that it will have enough qualified staff to perform evaluations, Mental
Health should continue its efforts to obtain approval of a new position classification
for SVP evaluators. If the State Personnel Board (SPB) approves the classification,
Mental Health should take steps to recruit qualified individuals as quickly as possible.
Additionally, Mental Health should continue its efforts to train its consulting
psychologists to conduct evaluations.

1

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Response:	

Mental Health has submitted its SVP Evaluator classification proposal to the
Department of Personnel Administration. It is anticipated that the SPB will hear the
proposal in the month of August 2011. SOCP will immediately recruit SVP Evaluators
once this classification is approved by SPB and position authority has been granted.
SOCP Consulting Psychologists currently attend trainings on legal and clinical
practices related to full evaluations and trends in the forensics field. Efforts to train
consulting psychologists to conduct evaluations will continue.
In addition, Mental Health plans to propose legislative amendments to extend its
authorization to use contractors for all types of evaluations prior to the expiration of
its current authorization of January 1, 2012.

Recommendation:	

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 first set of evaluators, Mental Health must only seek the
opinion of a fourth evaluator when a third evaluator concludes that the offender
meets the SVP criteria.

Response:	

Mental Health is evaluating options to reduce costs for unnecessary evaluations.

Recommendation:	

To ensure the Legislature can provide effective oversight, Mental Health should
complete and submit reports to the Legislature on its efforts to hire state employees
and on the impact of Jessica’s Law on the program as soon a possible.

Response:	

The Administration is in the process of finalizing these reports.

2

37

38

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

(Agency response provided as text only.)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
June 21, 2011
Ms. Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is submitting this letter in response
to the Bureau of State Audits’ report (BSA) entitled Departments of Mental Health and Corrections and
Rehabilitation: Streamlining the Process for Identifying Potential Sexually Violent Predators Would Reduce
Unnecessary or Duplicative Work.
The Legislature created the Sex Offender Commitment Program to target sex offenders who present the
highest risk to public safety due to their diagnosed mental disorders which predisposes them to engage in
sexually violent criminal behavior. As such, CDCR is committed to adhering to the statutory law governing
this program and will always err on the side of caution in regards to public safety when making sex offender
referrals to the Department of Mental Health (DMH). CDCR appreciates the thoughtful review conducted
by BSA and the concerns for duplicate work and potential savings for the state of California. CDCR notes the
current screening process developed collaboratively by both departments provides the ability for the State
to meet the intent of the Sexually Violent Predator statute in screening and identifying offenders without
requiring duplicative mental health assessments by both departments, which would have a negative fiscal
impact on the State. We agree that improvements can be made in streamlining the process and have already
implemented steps to improve the timeliness of our referrals to DMH. We look forward to carefully reviewing
the recommendations in this report and will continue our work with DMH to increase efficiency.
We would like to thank BSA for their work on this report and will address the specific recommendations in
a corrective action plan at 60-day, six-month, and one-year intervals. If you have further questions, please
contact me at (916) 323-6001.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Scott Kernan)
SCOTT KERNAN
Undersecretary, Operations (A)

39

40

California State Auditor Report 2010-116

July 2011

cc:	

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press