The MHSO and Accountability Commission - Term Paper Example

The law establishes the MHSO and Accountability Commission. Significantly, the commission is mandated to conduct an annual review and approve mental health programs at the county level for expenditures such as innovative programs, prevention, and early mitigation programs. Moreover, the law authorizes the SDMH to enhance technical assistance to mental health initiatives at county levels, as specified. The bill would terminate the requirement for such annual reviews and authorize the commission, to offer technical expertise to mental health initiatives in the counties (Base, 2012).

Currently, the law requires health programs in the counties to produce a project that would serve three years to be updated annually and seek the approval of the department after its review and the commission’s comments. The bill would terminate the annual requirement for updating the 3-year initiatives and the requirement for approval by the department preceded by review and commission’s comments.

The act restricts funds from the MHSF from supplanting the state funds used to provide psychological services. In addition, it requires financial support from the state for mental health activities with hardly the same entitlements and allocations from the GF.
The bill shall order the state to administer the fund as opposed to the department. Additionally, it would authorize continued financial support for mental health initiatives from the collection of local revenue. The Treasury of the state would require the Controller to disseminate to the counties all unutilized and unreserved funds in the MHSF monthly (Hall, 2009).

Under the law, money in the MHSF may be utilized only for recognized purposes, including 5% for innovative initiatives, as stipulated and 5% for department administrative costs, the CMHPC. The bill, 2012, would allocate certain funds in the MHSF to cater to Medical specialty in mental health services. For instance, through those funds for special pupils and the Periodic Screening, and Treatment program. Consequently, the allocation of funds in the MHSF for other purposes would make the bill an appropriation (Keithly, 2012).

The act demands the department to establish regulations, which may serve as crisis solvers and the designated local agencies to execute the enacted act. However, the bill would declare its consistency with the act; hence, it furthers the purpose. The Constitution in California has authorized the administration to announce a monetary emergency and call the Legislature into a special session for the above purpose. Significantly, Governor Schwarzenegger produced a proclamation ordering a fiscal emergency, and that necessitated a critical session for the same purpose.

Additionally, in December 2010. Governor Brown produced a proclamation in January 2011, as a declaration, a reaffirmation that a fiscal emergency disappears, and postulating that his proclamation had superseded the earlier proclamation on the provision of the constitution. However, the bill would postulate that it handles the fiscal emergency as declared by the reaffirmation of the Governor by his proclamation produced in January 2011, under the constitution of California.

Arguments for the SB. 76

In conclusion, it is significant to highlight the numerous arguments for the support of the SB. 76. According, to a legislative committee in California referred to as Friend’s committee, the war against drugs has been, predominantly hard on the feminine gender, thus the immense number of incarcerated women in California. For instance, whenever the father the incarceration of the father implies that the mother assumes the task of raising the children.

However, whenever the mother receives either incarceration, by a relative raises the children or they may emerge in foster care. In response, such a scenario has presented a devastating influence on the children, especially because they are most likely to end up in CJS. Significantly, scholars have consistently emphasized that to decimate recidivism, one must maintain significant familial bonds. Additionally, it is significant to note that, an overwhelming number of women have been convicted because of nonviolent offenses and they serve their sentences away from the population centers. Consequently, it has proved excessive due to their low security and risks; hence, discouraging family visits (Rosenberg, 2012).

Arguments against the SB. 76

Centrally, several individuals and organizations have postulated their arguments in opposition to the SB. 76. According to the Attorneys Association in California District, the provision that criminality carries consequences, is a critical factor in the CJS. Significantly, such consequences must not be resolved by employing factors that do not relate to a crime and its penalty. Consequently, individuals must portray readiness to object to the provisions of the bill, provided it would allow numerous offenders to avoid the state’s commitment to prison. However, this would simply entail the virtue that they are all pregnant women or caregivers. It is also worthwhile noting that, simply being a woman should not be used to make an individual inculpable for her actions. Consequently, the bill would allow numerous inmates to waste resources on insecure facilities at the expense of the prison of the state. Therefore, having children in and of itself should not guarantee enough excuse for conviction from the sentence of prison punishment. Read More