2013-103.pdf

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

1/107

Armed PersonsWith Mental Illness

Insucient Outreach From the Department o Justiceand Poor Reporting From Superior Courts Limit theIdentifcation o Armed Persons With Mental Illness

Report 2013-103

October 2

COMMITMENTINTEGRITY

LEADERSHIP

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

2/107

Te rst ve copies o each Caliornia State Auditor report are ree. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check

or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Caliornia State Auditors Oce at the ollowing address:

Caliornia State Auditor

621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200

Sacramento, Caliornia 95814

916.445.0255 or Y 916.445.0033

OR

Tis report is also available on our Web site at www.auditor.ca.gov.

Te Caliornia State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability o an online subscription service.

For inormation on how to subscribe, visit our Web site at www.auditor.ca.gov.

Alternate ormat reports available upon request.

Permission is granted to reproduce reports.

For questions regarding the contents o this report ,

please contact Margarita Fernndez, Chie o Public Aairs, at 916.445.0255.

For complaints o state employee misconduct, contact the Caliornia State Auditors

Whistleblower Hotline: 1.800.952.5665.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

3/107

Doug CordinerChie DeputyElaine M. HowleState Auditor

6 C a pit o l Ma l l , Su i t e Sa c ra m ent o , C A 9 5 8 4 9 6 .4 4 5 . 5 5 9 6 . 7 . 9 a x www.a ud it o r .c a .go v

October 29, 2013 2013-103

Te Governor o CaliorniaPresident pro empore o the SenateSpeaker o the AssemblyState CapitolSacramento, Caliornia 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Caliornia State Auditor (state auditor)presents this audit report concerning the reporting and identication o persons with mental illnesswho are prohibited rom owning or possessing a rearm.

Tis report concludes that the Department o Justice (Justice) has not suciently reached out to superiorcourts (courts) or mental health acilities to remind them o rearm prohibition reporting requirementsin state law. We surveyed 34 courts that did not appear to be submitting rearm prohibition reports toJustices mental health unit rom 2010 through 2012 and learned that most o them were unaware o thereporting requirements. Tose courts who were able to do so indicated that they had not reported about2,300 mental health determinations to Justice over the three-year period. We also visited three courts thatdid report inormationLos Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Claraand ound these courts didnot report all required mental health determinations to Justice. Further, Justice was not aware o and has notreached out to all mental health acilities in the State that were approved to treat reportable individuals.

Justice needs to improve its controls over processing the inormation about persons with mental illnessthat it receives rom reporting entities. For example, we ound that some key staf decisions, such asdetermining that a specic individual is not an armed prohibited person, are not subject to supervisoryreview once staf complete training. In act, three o eight such decisions we reviewed were incorrect,and the lack o supervisory review may have contributed to these incorrect decisions. Similarly, decisionsto delete prohibition inormation in the Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System do not requiresupervisory review.

In May 2013 the governor signed into law a $24 million appropriation to provide additional support toJustices efort to conscate rearms rom individuals it has identied as armed prohibited persons. Aso July 2013 Justice reported that more than 20,800 persons were still deemed to be armed prohibitedpersons or a variety o reasons not limited to mental health, and these persons had not had their rearmsconscated. Justice has begun the process o hiring additional enorcement agents. However, because

Justice uses the inormation it receives rom courts and mental health acilities to identiy persons who areprohibited rom possessing a rearm, Justice must improve its outreach to these entities and strengthenits management o the inormation it does receive to ensure it does all it can to protect the public.

Respectully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPAState Auditor

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

4/107

Blank page inserted or reproduction purposes only.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

5/107

California State Auditor Report 2013-103

October 2013

Contents

Summary 1

Introduction 5

Chapter

Superior Courts Did Not Report All Required Individuals,

and the Department o Justice Should Do More to Obtain

Inormation Related to Persons With Mental Illness 15

Recommendations 38

Chapter

The Department o Justice Did Not Always Identiy AllArmed Prohibited Persons and Has Struggled to Keep Up

With Its Armed Prohibited Persons Workload 41

Recommendations 63

Responses to the Audit

Department o Justice 67

Caliornia State Auditors Comments on the Response

From the Department o Justice 79

Health and Human Services Agency,

Caliornia Department o State Hospitals 81

Administrative Oce o the Courts 83

Caliornia State Auditors Comment on the Response

From the Administrative Oce o the Courts 85

Los Angeles Superior Court 87

San Bernardino Superior Court 89

Caliornia State Auditors Comment on the Response

From the San Bernardino Superior Court 93

San Francisco Superior Court 95

Caliornia State Auditors Comments on the Response

From the San Francisco Superior Court 97

Santa Clara Superior Court 99

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

6/107


October 2013

vi

Blank page inserted or reproduction purposes only.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

7/107


October 2013

Audit Highlights . . .

Our audit o the reporting and

identication o persons with mental

illness who are prohibited rom owning

or possessing a rearm (armed prohibited

persons) highlighted the ollowing:

The Department o Justice (Justice) has

not suciently reached out to the superior

courts (courts) or mental health acilities to

remind them to promptly report required

inormation and cannot identiy all armed

prohibited persons in Caliornia efectively.

Many courts were not aware o state law

requiring them to report individuals to

Justice when the courts make certain

mental health determinations

the 34 courts we surveyed indicated they

had not reported about 2,300 o these

determinations collectively over a

threeyear period.

None o the three courts we visitedully complied with state law because

they ailed to report all o their

required determinations, such as those

that determined that individuals were

mentally incompetent to stand trial

or those deemed a danger to others.

Each o the courts we visited varied in

their interpretation o state laws current

requirement to report determinations to

Justice immediately.

We identied 22 mental health acilities

that Justice had not contacted about

reporting requirements.

Justice has struggled to keep up with its

existing workloadit has at times had

a daily backlog o cases waiting or initial

review that exceeded the inormal cap o

1,200 cases.

continued on next page . . .

Summary

Results in Brie

Te Department o Justice (Justice) manages Caliornias eortto identiy rearm owners in the State who are prohibited romowning or possessing a rearm because o a mental healthrelatedevent in their lie. Justice reers to these individuals as armedprohibited persons. Justice attempts to identiy armed prohibitedpersons by matching its records o rearm owners against reportsabout individuals with mental illness that it receives rom superiorcourts (courts) and mental health acilities. Although it relies oninormation rom courts and mental health acilities to identiythese persons, Justice had not suciently reached out to the courts

or mental health acilities to remind them to promptly reportthis required inormation. In addition, Justice needs to improveits controls over processing the inormation it does receive romreporting entities, because key decisions, such as whether aperson is prohibited, are let to sta whose work does not receivea supervisory review. Because o these issues, Justice cannot identiyall armed prohibited persons in Caliornia as eectively as it should,and the inormation it uses to ensure public saety by conscatingrearms is incomplete.

Although state law requires courts to report individuals to Justicewhenever the courts make certain mental health determinations,many courts in the State were not aware o these requirements.We surveyed 34 courts that did not appear to be reporting thesedeterminations, and their collective responses indicated that theyhad not reported about 2,300 mental health determinations toJustice over the threeyear period rom 2010 through 2012, theocus period o this audit. Additionally, several courts indicatedthat, generally due to system limitations, they could not provide uswith the number o reportable determinations they had ailed toreport. Beore our audit, Justice had not reached out to the courtsto remind them about the reporting requirements, and it still hasnot ollowed up with nonreporting courts to conrm that they

had no reportable determinations.

Further, we visited three courts that did report inormation toJustice during the audit period, but they did not ully comply withstate law because they ailed to report all o their required courtdeterminations. For example, we ound that the Mental HealthCourthouse at the Los Angeles Superior Court (Los Angeles Court)was unaware o several court determinations it was required toreport. Among these were those that determined that individualswere mentally incompetent to stand trial or that an individual is adanger to others. Additionally, we ound that the San BernardinoSuperior Court (San Bernardino Court) had not reported any o

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

8/107


October 2013

2

the determinations we reviewed o individuals deemed mentallyincompetent to stand trial. Further, the Santa Clara Superior

Court (Santa Clara Court) did not notiy Justice about any oits determinations that an individual was to be committed to amental health acility or an extended period or that an individualsconservatorship was to be terminated early. We also ound thatthese courts varied in their interpretations o state laws currentrequirement to report determinations to Justice immediately.Legislation signed by the governor in October 2013 will changethis requirement eective January 1, 2014. Tis change will givecourts more time to report to Justice than the 24 hours given tomental health acilities, which are also required to report certainindividuals to Justice. Because the inormation courts report isimportant or public saety, we question this change.

Additionally, Justice was not aware o and has not reached out toall mental health acilities in the State that were approved to treatreportable individuals. By comparing Justices acilities outreach listto a list o approved mental health acilities, we identied 22 mentalhealth acilities that Justice had not contacted about reportingrequirements. When it does not reach out to all mental healthacilities in the State, Justice risks being unable to identiy all armedprohibited persons because the mental health acilities may notknow about the reporting requirements or how or when to reportsuch individuals.

However, i additional mental health acilities and courts were toreport prohibiting events, Justices workload would increase, and ithas struggled to keep up with its existing workload. Justices Armedand Prohibited Persons unit (APPS unit) in its Bureau o Firearmshas at times had a daily backlog waiting or initial review thatexceeded the inormal cap Justice set o 1,200 pending matches.For example, Justice reported that a signicant rise in the ArmedProhibited Persons System backlog during late 2012 and early2013 coincided with a rise in the number o required backgroundchecks or rearm purchases. At the time the background checkworkload increased, Justice reports that it shited APPS unit sta to

complete these checks, and we ound Justice did not meet its owninternal deadline or completing initial reviews o potential armedprohibited persons. Justice could again ace similar challenges.

Further, current weaknesses in Justices workload managementand controls over inormation it receives demonstrate that itmay be unprepared or an increase in workload. Justice needsto improve its controls over processing the inormation aboutpersons with mental illness that it receives rom reporting entities.For some o the report records we reviewed, Justice had notentered inormation it received into the databases that wouldmake the inormation available or the APPS unit to review.

There is a lack o supervisory review, and

three o the eight decisions regarding

armed prohibited person status wereviewed were incorrect.

Justice reported that more than

20,800 persons were still deemed to be

armed prohibited persons as o July 2013,

and these persons had not had their

rearms conscated.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

9/107


October 2013

Additionally, we ound that some key sta decisions, such asdetermining that a specic individual is not an armed prohibited

person, are not subject to supervisory review once sta completetraining. In act, three o eight such decisions we reviewed wereincorrect, and the lack o supervisory review may have contributedto these incorrect decisions. Similarly, decisions to deleteprohibition inormation in the Mental Health Firearms ProhibitionSystem (mental health database) do not require supervisory review.I Justice improved its controls over this inormation, it wouldreduce the risk o ailing to identiy all armed prohibited personsand it would have all the inormation necessary to ensure publicsaety through rearms conscation.

Te need or improvements to Justices identication o armed

prohibited persons has recently taken on greater importance dueto an increase in unding to aid in the conscation o rearms romthose prohibited persons. In May 2013 the governor signed intolaw an appropriation o $24 million to provide additional supportto Justices eort to conscate rearms rom armed prohibitedpersons. Over the twoyear period ending in May 2013, Justice hadcompleted a total o three conscation sweeps, which, in additionto its ongoing conscation eorts, collected a total o nearly4,000 rearms rom armed prohibited persons. However, Justicereported that more than 20,800 persons were still deemed to bearmed prohibited personsor a variety o reasons not limited tomental healthas o July 2013, and these persons had not had theirrearms conscated. In response to the new appropriation, Justicehas begun the process o hiring additional enorcement agents.However, these agents will rely on the inormation that Justicereceives rom reporting entities and that its sta review and makedeterminations about. Tereore, it is critical that Justice improveits outreach and internal processes so its agents can better protectthe public rom armed prohibited persons.

Recommendations

o ensure that it has the necessary inormation to identiy armedprohibited persons with mental illness, Justice should at leastonce a year consider inormation about court reporting levels andrequest that courts it determines may be underreporting orwardall required case inormation.

o ensure that all required prohibited individuals are reported toJustice, the three courts we visitedLos Angeles, San Bernardino,and Santa Clarashould ensure that they implement proceduresto report all types o determinations that state law requires.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

10/107


October 2013

4

Te Legislature should amend state law to speciy that all mentalhealthrelated prohibiting events must be reported to Justice within

24 hours regardless o the entity required to report.

o ensure that it keeps an accurate and uptodate list o all mentalhealth acilities required to report individuals with mental illness,at least twice a year Justice should update its outreach list omental health acilities, and as soon as it identies mental healthacilities that have not yet received inormation about reportingrequirements, Justice should send these acilities this inormation.

o ensure that timely inormation is available or its eorts toidentiy armed prohibited persons and conscate their rearms,Justice should manage sta priorities to meet its internal deadline

or initially reviewing potential prohibited persons.

o ensure that it makes correct determinations about whether anindividual is an armed prohibited person, Justice should implementquality control procedures, including supervisory review, overAPPS unit sta determinations.

o ensure that it processes all reports it receives about personswith mental illness, Justices mental health unit should developand implement quality control procedures, including periodicsupervisory review o report entry to ensure that all reports areentered correctly into the mental health database. Additionally, itshould conduct a supervisory review o all sta decisions to deleterecords rom the database beore their deletion.

Agency Comments

Justice agreed with all o our recommendations and outlinedsteps it will take to implement them. In general, the other entitiesto which we directed recommendations acknowledged that theyneed to improve their practices and agreed to implement changesto address the issues we ound. However, the Administrative

Oce o the Courts cited resource issues as precluding courtsrom implementing a change we recommend to state law.In addition, San Francisco Superior Court objected to speciclanguage in our report and did not indicate whether it agreedwith our recommendation to the court.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

11/107


October 2013

Introduction

Background

State law, enacted in 2001 and subject to appropriation o unds,mandated the Department o Justice (Justice) to create a databaseto match inormation related to persons in the State who areprohibited rom owning or possessing a rearm (prohibitedpersons) to its records o rearm owners to determine whetherthese individuals are prohibited rom owning their rearms. Tisdatabase, commonly known as the Armed Prohibited PersonsSystem (APPS database), was implemented in November 2006.Te purpose o this system is to crossreerence all personsin Caliornia who are rearm owners and who are unlawully in

possession o a rearm because o a qualiying event in theirlie that prohibits them rom owning a rearm. Justice reersto these individuals as armed prohibited persons. Justice hasdescribed Caliornia as the only state in the United States thathas established an automated system or tracking handgun andassault weapon owners who might all into a prohibited status.Tis system and its purpose are separate rom Justices other duty tocomplete background checks or individuals who are attemptingto purchase a rearm.

Although dierent qualiying events can cause someone tobecome a prohibited person, the scope o this audit is limitedto prohibitions related to mental health. Because o the varietyo prohibiting events, dierent entities throughout the State arerequired to report to Justice when a prohibiting event occurs.Mental health acilities are generally responsible or reportingprohibiting events related to mental health status. Superior courts(courts) are generally responsible or reporting events relatedto criminal proceedings, but they are also required to reportinormation to Justice related to determinations concerning anindividuals mental health. Local law enorcement is required toreport whenever a licensed psychotherapist reports that a patienthas made a threat against an individual. Such reports are known

as araso reports.

Current state law directs Justice to identiy persons who have ownership or possession o arearm, as indicated by a record in Justices Consolidated Firearms Inormation System (CFIS).CFIS contains records o rearm owners rom inormation that Justice receives rom sales andsubsequent transers o rearms as well as registered owners o assault weapons. Thus, we usethe term frearm owners throughout the report to describe these individuals.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

12/107


October 2013

6

Reporting by the Courts

State law requires courts to report certain mentalhealth determinations to Justice immediately aterthe court makes the determination. Te text boxshows the types o judicial determinationsthat courts are required to report to Justice.Tese determinations are related to both civiland criminal matters. Courts can report theirdeterminations to Justice by either electronicor paper means. As Figure 1 shows, the courtssend their determinations either to JusticesBureau o Criminal Inormation and Analysis(criminal inormation unit) or to Justices

Bureau o Firearms mental health unit. Eachunit at Justice processes reports rom the courtsinto a dierent Justice database. Te criminalinormation unit inputs reports rom the courtsinto Justices Automated Criminal HistorySystem (criminal history system), while mentalhealth unit sta enter reports they receive intothe Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System(mental health database).

Not all determinations that courts report toJustice result in an individual being prohibited

rom possessing a rearm. Some determinations will reverse or lita previous prohibition. For example, a court determination that anindividual requires a conservatorship because o a mental illnesscan result in prohibition rom possessing a rearm i the courtorders such a prohibition. However, i the court later orders anearly termination o the original conservatorship or determines thatthe individuals possession o a rearm would no longer present adanger, the individual is no longer prohibited under state law rompossessing a rearm. State law requires courts to report both typeso determinations to Justice.

Reporting by Mental Health Facilities and the Caliornia Department

o State Hospitals

Caliornia has both public and private mental health acilities thatprovide treatment to individuals or mental health issues. Teseinclude psychiatric health acilities and acute psychiatric hospitals

In October 2013 the governor signed legislation, which will take eect January 1, 2014, and willchange the time rames within which courts must report their mental health determinations.Specically, courts will no longer be required to report immediately but will be required to reportas soon as possible but not later than two court days ater the determination. Also, courts will be

required to report these determinations electronically.

Determinations That Superior Courts Must

Report to the Department o Justice

An individual has been ound by the court to be:

A danger to others as a result o a mental disorder or

illness, which results in a court-ordered commitment

to a treatment acility.

Not guilty by reason o insanity or has regained his

or her sanity.

Mentally incompetent to stand trial or has regained

his or her competency.

Gravely disabled due to a mental disorder or

impairment by chronic alcoholism and requiring aconservator, and the possession o a frearm would

present a danger to himsel or hersel or others.

No longer gravely disabled and requiring a

conservator or the court has ound that the

possession o a frearm would no longer present a

danger to himsel or hersel or others.

Source: Caliornia Welare and Institutions Code, sections ,, and 6.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

13/107


October 2013

Figure 1

The Process o Reporting Mental Health Firearm Prohibiting Events to the Department o Justice and Identiying

Armed Prohibited Persons

ProhibitedNOT Prohibited

Pending Review Queue

Prohibiting event?

Is this thesame person?

NO

YES

YES

NO

Armed Prohibited PersonsSystem (APPS database)

(stored within the ConsolidatedFirearms Information System)

The APPS database matches individuals fromthese supporting systems against firearmowners records, and all matches are placed inthe pending review queue.

2

Staff review each match in the pending queueto determine if the individual is prohibited.3

Mental Health Unitenters records.

Bureau of CriminalInformation and Analysis

enters records.

Mental Health ReportingSystem (electronic)

Justice staff estimatethat courts submit

75 percent ofcriminal dispositions

electronically.

Mental Health Facilities

Civil DeterminationsCriminal Determinations

Paperdocuments

Paperdocuments

Mental Health FirearmsProhibition System(mental health database)

Automated Criminal History System(criminal history system)

California SuperiorCourts (courts)

Department of Justice (Justice)

Each night records fromthe mental healthdatabase and criminalhistory system are sentto the APPS database.

1

Sources: Inormation provided by Justices Bureau o Firearms and the Bureau o Criminal Inormation and Analysis.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

14/107


October 2013

8

that provide inpatient treatment to individuals with mental healthneeds. State law requires mental health acilities to report to Justice

certain individuals who are placed or treatment. Specically, theseacilities are required to report individuals placed under involuntaryholds at a mental health acility and individuals who, ater theirinvoluntary hold, are ound to be in need o urther treatment.In all cases, state law requires that mental health acilities reportthese prohibiting events to Justice immediately and update Justiceregarding the persons discharge rom the acility i the individualremained at the acility or more than one month. Figure 1 on theprevious page shows the fow o reported inormation. As the gureshows, Justice stores the inormation rom mental health acilities inits mental health database.

Eective July 2012 state law requires all mental health acilitiesto report prohibited persons to Justice electronically. According toa committee analysis o this change to the law, this requirement wasintended to decrease the time it takes to report prohibiting events toJustice and thereby increase the speed at which Justice can identiyprohibited persons. In act, Justice had implemented an electronicreporting system as early as July 2009, and mental health acilitieshad the option o reporting electronically beore use o this systemwas required in July 2012.

Additionally, the Caliornia Department o State Hospitals(State Hospitals) operates eight hospital acilities statewide, someo which provide treatment to patients who are prohibited rompossessing rearms because o their mental health condition.State law requires State Hospitals to maintain and make availableto Justice those records as are necessary to identiy prohibitedpersons. Tis inormation must be kept in a central location, andState Hospitals must make it available to Justice upon request. Dueto the legislation discussed in ootnote 4, eective January 1, 2014,State Hospitals will be required to provide this inormation toJustice electronically and within 24 hours o a request.

Justices Process or Identiying Prohibited Persons

Te Armed and Prohibited Persons unit (APPS unit) within JusticesBureau o Firearms is responsible or identiying armed personswith mental illness rom a daily list o individuals who may meet

State law requires mental health acilities to report individuals who have been taken to aacility involuntarily and admitted to the acility or evaluation and treatment because theypresent a danger to themselves or others. Throughout this report, we reer to this process as aninvoluntary hold.

In October 2013 the governor signed legislation, which will take eect January 1, 2014, andwill change the time rames within which mental health acilities must report individuals withprohibiting events. Specically, acilities will no longer be required to report immediately but will

be required to report within 24 hours.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

15/107


October 2013

the criteria. As o April 2013 the APPS unit consisted o 10 sta,a manager, and a supervisor. As shown in Figure 1, every evening

an automatic check matches the records in the mental healthdatabase and criminal history system with inormation in JusticesCFIS, which contains a record o rearm owners in Caliornia since1996 and o assault weapon owners since 1989. Specically, Justicecompares personal identiying inormation such as Social Securitynumbers to identiy individuals who own a rearm and who mayhave had a mental health prohibiting event logged into one othe two databases within the last 24 hours. All persons identiedthrough this automated check are placed in a pending queue orAPPS unit sta to review.

Sta in the APPS unit manually review each person in the pending

review queue to determine whether the automated check hasmatched the correct individual. For example, the automated checkwill match an individual with a recent prohibiting event withsomeone in CFIS who has the same personal identication number,such as a Caliornia drivers license number, but a dierent nameand date o birth. Justice has implemented a manual review othese potentially prohibited persons so that rearm owners are notincorrectly labeled as prohibited persons by an automated process.In addition to veriying identity, sta also veriy that the event thatpulled the individual rom the criminal history system or the mentalhealth database is actually a prohibiting event. When sta determinethat someone is a prohibited person, they change that individualsstatus in the APPS database toprohibitedand update his or herinormation, including address and rearm ownership inormation.

Te APPS database identies individuals who own rearms andwhether they have a prohibition. Te state law that required Justiceto create the APPS database specically requires Justice to searchits rearm records to determine whether the individual has hada prohibiting event. State law does not direct Justice to, nor isJustice attempting to, identiy or purposes o the APPS databaseindividuals who have prohibiting events, are unarmed, and areliving at the same residence as rearm owners. Legislation signed

by the governor in October 2013 will amend state law, eectiveJanuary 1, 2014, to speciy that when rearm owners know orhave reason to know that they reside with a prohibited person,they may not keep a rearm at the residence unless the rearmis maintained under specic conditions that state law prescribes,such as within a locked container. A violation o these provisionswill constitute a misdemeanor. Further, the APPS unit is notresponsible or background checks or rearm purchases. AnotherBureau o Firearms unit, the Dealers Record o Sale processing unit,

Additional databases, such as Justices Domestic Violence Restraining Order System, are alsomatched against the records o rearm owners. However, only the mental health database and

the criminal history system are pertinent to our review.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

16/107


October 2013

10

is responsible or completing these background checks. Figure 2shows the possible types o prohibited person status as they relate to

rearm ownership.

Figure 2

Types o Prohibited Person Status

NOT aProhibited Person Prohibited Person

ARMEDProhibited Person

Is the person a firearm owner?

Does this person have a prohibiting event?

YES

YES

NO

NO YES

YES

Sources: Caliornia State Auditors analysis o state law and the Department o Justices Bureauo FirearmsArmed Prohibited Persons System Training Manual.

Note: The termprohibited person means that the individual is prohibited rom owning orpossessing a rearm.

As o July 2013 Justice had identied more than 20,800 personsas armed prohibited persons. O this total, Justice estimated thatabout onethird are prohibited due to an event related to theirmental health; these types o prohibitions are the subject o thisaudit. estiying about the known armed prohibited persons at anAssembly budget subcommittee hearing in March 2013, the chieo Justices Bureau o Firearms indicated that a lack o resources hasprevented Justice rom being able to make any major progress inremoving rearms rom individuals identied as armed prohibited

persons. Although some conscation eorts have occurred, eortshave been limited. In May 2013 Justice received additional undingto advance its eorts to conscate rearms by addressing a backlogo armed prohibited persons in the APPS database, which wediscuss urther in Chapter 2.

Scope and Methodology

Te Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee)directed the Caliornia State Auditor (state auditor) to reviewJustices management o inormation it receives regarding

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

17/107


October 2013

individuals with mental illness who are prohibited rom owning orpossessing a rearm and what Justice does to identiy whether these

individuals are armed. Te audit committee also directed the stateauditor to review a selection o courts to determine whether thecourts had sucient policies, procedures, and practices to report allrelevant court determinations to Justice in a timely manner. able 1lists the objectives that the audit committee approved and themethods we used to address them.

Table 1

Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD

Review and evaluate the laws,

rules, and regulations signicant

to the audit objectives.

Reviewed relevant laws and other background materials. We identied no relevant regulations that were

signicant to the audit objectives.

Review and evaluate the

Department o Justices (Justice)

policies and procedures or

identiying, tracking, and

monitoring o inormation

related to prohibited persons

with mental illness and

determine whether the policies

and procedures comply with

laws and regulations.

Reviewed Justices relevant policies and procedures and compared them to the requirements in state law.

Interviewed Justices sta to determine and document the key steps in Justices processes or receiving

and entering inormation into the Automated Criminal History System (criminal history system) and the

Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System (mental health database) and what supervisory controls exist

over this process.

Interviewed sta regarding the process that Armed and Prohibited Persons unit (APPS unit) sta

use to determine that an individual is a prohibited person and what supervisory controls exist over

these decisions.

Interviewed Justice sta to determine whether Justice makes any eort to reach out to superior

courts (courts) that do not report mental health determinations.

Review and assess Justices

process or communicating

with public and private mental

health acilities and the

Caliornia Department o State

Hospitals (State Hospitals), and

or requesting and obtaining

inormation rom these entities

concerning prohibited persons

with mental illness. Determine

the extent to which Justice is

successul in obtaining this

inormation and i not, what

recourse, i any, it can take.

At Justice we perormed the ollowing steps:

Interviewed sta at Justice to understand how they obtain inormation rom public and private mental

health acilities and whether they believe Justice has any recourse when acilities do not report.

Reviewed mental health acility outreach documents that communicate acility reporting requirements to

determine i the outreach documents inorm acilities about their reporting duties.

Determined whether Justices outreach list o mental health acilities was complete by obtaining an

independent listing o mental health acilities, which was maintained by the Caliornia Department o

Social Services, and comparing it to the list Justice uses or outreach activities.

For determined how many mental health acilities reported inormation to Justice and the trend in

acility reporting levels. Determined what actions Justice has taken to receive reports rom acilities that

stopped reporting or had a signicant drop in their reporting levels.

Reviewed email communications and interviewed Justices sta to understand Justices attempts to request

that State Hospitals share inormation about prohibited persons.

At State Hospitals we perormed the ollowing steps:

Interviewed sta to determine how oten State Hospitals reported prohibited persons to Justice.

Interviewed sta to determine whether State Hospitals reported inormation to Justice electronically.

Determined which hospital acilities reported electronically in and whether those acilities are the

only ones that treat patients that should be reported.

continued on next page . . .

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

18/107


October 2013

12


Examine Justices practices to

determine the ollowing:

a. Whether Justice complies

with its policies and

procedures in processing

reports rom the various

entities to ensure that

inormation regarding

prohibited persons with

mental illness is updated in

its Armed Prohibited Persons

System (APPS database).

Interviewed sta to understand processes and controls regarding receiving and processing reports rom

courts, mental health acilities, and local law enorcement.

Reviewed a selection o paper prohibition reports to determine i Justice was accurately processing

reports o mental health prohibiting events it received in a timely manner.

Justices mental health unit received o these paper records rom courts, mental health acilit ies, or local

law enorcement. Although we intended to review ve reports rom each o the three years in our audit

period ( through ), our selection o reports was more heavily weighted towards reports rom

August through December because Justices record retention practices let ewer paper reports

beore that time available or our review.

Obtained the remaining nine paper reports rom the Los Angeles Superior Court (Los Angeles Court). This

court was the only court we visited under Objective that reported some criminal case inormation using

paper orms.

Reviewed a selection o individuals related to mental health determinations rom the APPS unit and

determined whether Justice correctly identied each individuals prohibited status and entered therequired inormation into the APPS database. In o these selected determinations, the individual was

an armed prohibited person, and in eight, the individual was not an armed prohibited person.

Obtained and reviewed the Bureau o Firearms and Bureau o Criminal Inormation and Analysis record

retention schedules and interviewed applicable sta.

b. The length o time it takes

Justice to process reports

identiying prohibited

persons with mental

illness and to update

applicable databases.

Calculated the average amount o time that passes between the time an individual is available or review

in the APPS database and the time an APPS unit sta person makes a determination about whether

that individual is prohibited.

Identied the cases in which Justice took the longest amount o time to make an APPS determination and

interviewed Justices sta about why these determinations took longer to process.

As part o testing under Objective (a), reviewed the time it took Justice to enter reports o prohibiting

events that it received into the criminal history system and the mental health database.

As part o work completed under Objective (d), determined the average time it took Justice to process

reports it received rom mental health acilities.c. Whether Justice has a

backlog in processing and

updating the APPS database

and the extent, source, and

reasons or any backlogs.

Interviewed Justices sta to determine whether backlogs exist in the APPS database and what may

cause backlogs.

Determined how Justice prioritizes the APPS database review queue.

Documented the circumstances that led to the historical backlog o rearm owners and Justices eorts to

reduce this backlog.

Reviewed the APPS unit managers records o the number o potentially prohibited persons that the APPS

unit reviewed during the time the manager oversaw the unit.

d. Whether the requirement

to electronically submit

inormation imposed

by Assembly Bill

Chapter , Statutes o

has improved the

efciency o processing

applicable reports.

By quarter or through , calculated the average amount o time it took mental health acilities

to report individuals with mental illness to Justice and the t ime it took Justice to enter these reports

into its mental health database. Compared the period o time beore and ater the electronic reporting

requirement to determine i the amount o time it took both the acilities and Justice to process reports

decreased ater the reporting requirement.

Determined when Justice rst made electronic reporting available to acilities.

For a sample o courts, conduct

the ollowing:

a. Review the courts policies and

protocols related to tracking

relevant inormation about


mental illness and reporting

required inormation to

Justice. Assess the courts

compliance with related laws

and regulations.

We visited selected locations at three courts: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Clara. At each court, we

perormed the ollowing procedures:

Reviewed the courts policies, procedures, and practices related to reporting the required court

determinations to Justice in a timely manner. When written policies and procedures did not exist, we

interviewed court sta to understand the courts reporting practices.

Compared the courts policies, procedures, or practices to the requirements in state law to determine i the

courts reported all o the types o court determinations that state law requires courts to report to Justice.

Interviewed sta at the courts to determine how they understand the laws requirement to report to

Justice immediately.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

19/107


October 2013

Assessment o Data Reliability

In perorming this audit, we obtained electronic data les extractedrom Justices APPS database and mental health database. TeU.S. Government Accountability Oce, whose standards weollow, requires us to assess the suciency and appropriatenesso computerprocessed inormation that we use to support ourndings, conclusions, or recommendations. We perormeddataset verication procedures and electronic testing o key data

elements and did not identiy any issues. We did not perormaccuracy and completeness testing o these data because thesource documents required or this testing are stored by variousentities, such as mental health acilities, courts, or rearm retailerslocated throughout the State, making such testing costprohibitive.Consequently, we ound the data rom the APPS and mental healthdatabases were o undetermined reliability or the purposes ocalculating mental health acilities reporting statistics, the numbero mental health reports submitted to Justice, number o rearmowners with personal identiying numbers not used in the matching


b. Review the courts practices

and determine whether the

courts are properly, and in a

timely manner, transmitting

required inormation on


mental illness to Justice.

Reviewed a selection o court determinations that state law requires the court to report to Justice

to determine i the court complied with state law and its own policies and procedures or reporting.

We reviewed to determinations at each o the three courts.

For cases where the court ailed to report determinations to Justice, we reviewed the related individuals

rearm ownership history. We also reviewed Justices criminal history system and mental health database to

assess whether the individual had been reported previously or by another entity or a mental health event.

c. Identiy the courts

monitoring policies

and control processes

to determine whether

they adequately ensure

that courts comply with

reporting requirements.

Identied monitoring policies and controls over reporting during our review o court policies, procedures,

and practices described in step (a).

Tested the court determinations we selected in step (b) to see whether the courts controls ensured that

Justice receives reports o prohibiting qualiying events in a timely ashion.

6 Review and assess any other

issues that are signicant to

the reporting o inormation

to Justice related to prohibited

persons with mental illness,

and the use o these data to

protect the public.

Based on data obtained rom Justices mental health database, surveyed courts that appeared to report

only a ew or no determinations to Justice in order to determine i the courts were aware o the reporting

requirements, whether they had ever been contacted by Justice about the reporting requirements, and

i they had not been reporting, the total number o determinations that should have been reported

to Justice.

Interviewed sta at Justice regarding its eorts and process to remove rearms rom known

prohibited persons.

Reviewed summary inormation pertaining to the number o armed prohibited persons in the State as o

July and the extent o the backlog in conscating rearms.

Reviewed legislation, signed into law in May , that appropriated additional unding to Justice or the

purpose o conscating rearms rom armed prohibited persons.

Sources: Caliornia State Auditors analysis o Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request number -, planning documents, and analysis oinormation and documentation identied in the column titled Method.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

20/107


October 2013

14

process, and the average number o days it took Justice to makea determination. Further, we also used these data or the purpose

o selecting determinations or review. Nevertheless, we useddata rom the APPS database and the mental health database, asthey represent the best available sources o data related to armedprohibited persons.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

21/107


October 2013

Chapter 1

SUPERIOR COURTS DID NOT REPORT ALL REQUIREDINDIVIDUALS, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICESHOULD DO MORE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION RELATEDTO PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

Chapter Summary

Although state law requires superior courts (courts) to reportindividuals to the Department o Justice (Justice) whenever thecourt makes certain mental health determinations, many courtsin Caliornia were not aware o these requirements, and the

corresponding lack o inormation inhibits Justices ability to identiyarmed persons with mental illness. However, beore our audit, Justicehad not reached out to courts to remind them about the reportingrequirement. Additionally, it has not ollowed up with nonreportingor apparent underreporting courts to determine whether thesecourts had any reportable determinations or why there had beena signicant change in reporting. Further, we ound that eventhree courts we visited that were reporting inormation to Justicewere not always reporting all o their determinations as state lawrequires. For example, we ound that the Mental Health Courthouseat the Los Angeles Superior Court (Los Angeles Court) was unawareo several types o court determinations it was required to report.

In addition to courts, state law requires mental health acilities toreport persons who are prohibited rom owning or possessing arearm (prohibited persons) to Justice. However, Justice was notaware o and has not made contact with all mental health acilitiesin the State that may treat reportable individuals. When it doesnot reach out to all mental health acilities in the State, Justicerisks being unable to identiy armed prohibited persons becausethose acilities may not know how to report such individuals.When Justice and the courts do not make every eort to identiyand report all persons with mental illness who are prohibited rom

possessing rearms, the risk increases that individuals who shouldno longer possess their rearms will go unnoticed, thus hinderingJustices eort to protect the public by conscating those rearms.

Many Courts Were Unaware o the Mental Health Reporting

Requirements, and Justice Had Not Completed Outreach to Remind

These Courts o the Requirements

Data rom Justices Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System(mental health database) show that many courts appear not to bereporting any mental health determinations to Justice. Further, in

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

22/107


October 2013

16

response to a survey we sent, a majority o these courts indicatedthat they were not aware o the requirement in state law to report

certain mental health determinations. Although Justice was awarethat courts were not reporting specic mental health events as statelaw requires, it had not reached out to the nonreporting courtsbeore the start o our audit. When courts do not inorm Justiceo the required mental health determinations, Justice is less ableto identiy armed individuals with mental illness who continue topossess rearms.

Many Courts Failed to Report Mental Health Determinations to Justice

Because They Were Unaware o the Reporting Requirements

As we discuss in the Introduction, state law requires the courts tonotiy Justice o certain mental health determinations that prohibitan individual rom possessing a rearm. Courts must report someo these determinations to Justices mental health unit, and stain that unit then enter these reports into Justices mental healthdatabase. However, records rom that database show that rom 2010through 2012, many courts did not submit any reports regardingmental health determinations to the mental health unit. Based onthis inormation, we surveyed 34 courts throughout the State thateither had not reported any determinations or had reported veryew. Court responses to key survey questions appear in able 2.

Table 2

Responses From Superior Courts Surveyed by the Caliornia State Auditor

Regarding Reporting Firearm Prohibitions to the Department o Justice

COURT NAME

DURING 2010 THROUGH 2012, WAS THE SUPERIOR

COURT (COURT) AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT

TO REPORT MENTAL HEALTH DETERMINATIONS

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND

INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 8103?

HOW MANY CIVIL DETERMINATIONS

DID COURTS INDICATE THEY FAILED TO

REPORT FROM 2010 THROUGH 2012?

Alameda No 6*,

Alpine No

Amador No

Calaveras No

Colusa No

Contra Costa Yes Unable to determine

Del Norte Yes

El Dorado No

Fresno No 66

Glenn No

Imperial No

Inyo Yes

Kings No Unable to determine

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

23/107


October 2013

COURT NAME

DURING 2010 THROUGH 2012, WAS THE SUPERIOR

COURT (COURT) AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT

TO REPORT MENTAL HEALTH DETERMINATIONS

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND

INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 8103?

HOW MANY CIVIL DETERMINATIONS

DID COURTS INDICATE THEY FAILED TO

REPORT FROM 2010 THROUGH 2012?

Lassen No

Madera No Unable to determine

Mariposa No

Mendocino Yes

Modoc No

Mono No

Napa No Unable to determine

Nevada No Unable to determine

Plumas No

Riverside Yesll ,ll

San Benito No

San Francisco No #

San Joaquin No

Shasta No Unable to determine

Sierra No

Solano No *

Stanislaus No

Trinity No

Tulare No Unable to determine

Yolo No

Yuba No

Total number o reportable determinations: 2,304**

Source: Caliornia State Auditors analysis o responses to a survey o courts in counties.

* These courts stated that they could not separately identiy conservatorship orders that containeda rearm prohibition.

These courts stated that they were only able to provide a partial number o determinationseither only or specic types o determinations or only or certain years.

This court stated that its procedures show that court sta were aware o portions o the CaliorniaWelare and Institutions Code, Section , but was not aware o all types o cases it wasrequired to report.

These courts were unable to determine the number o reportable court determinations, withseveral courts citing limitations o their court case management systems.

II This court stated that it became aware o the requirement in March , at which time it beganreporting. Thereore, we did not include determinations the court reported it made ater it

became aware. However, this court stated that beore it submitted incomplete reports toJustice. These reports were not included in the data we analyzed.

# In addition to the determinations shown in the table that do not relate to conservatorships,San Francisco Superior Court reported , conservatorship orders in response to our survey.According to a managing attorney, the orders do not include rearm prohibitions. We discuss thisissue urther in the report text.

** Fiteen o the , determinations would have removed an individuals rearm restriction ratherthan imposed it.

According to the survey responses, many courts in the State werenot aware o mental health reporting requirements that relatedirectly to rearm prohibitions. Specically, 29 o the 34 courts we

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

24/107


October 2013

18

surveyed indicated that between 2010 and 2012 they were not awareo the state law that requires them to notiy Justice immediately

about certain mental health determinations that prohibit anindividual rom possessing a rearm. We noted that severalcourts stated they were not aware o the mental health reportingrequirements but they did report criminal determinations toJustice, indicating that they were aware o a separate requirement instate law to report certain criminal case inormation. Because somemental health determinations, such as court ndings that a personis mentally incompetent to stand trial, are criminal determinations,it is possible that courts reported some criminal mental healthdeterminations in response to this requirement. Nevertheless,29 o the 34 courts we surveyed were not aware o the requirementsrelated specically to rearm prohibitions that require them to

report inormation immediately, which means the courts wouldnot have reported all mental health prohibiting events.

At the same time that they were unaware o the rearm reportingrequirements, many o the courts we surveyed stated that theymade determinations between 2010 and 2012 that should have beenreported to Justice. In the survey responses we received, courtsindicated that they collectively made about 2,300 civil mentalhealth determinations, such as conservatorships and courtorderedcommitments to mental health acilities, that should have beenreported to Justice and were not. One court, the Alameda SuperiorCourt (Alameda Court), accounted or the largest number othe unreported determinations shown in able 2 beginning onpage 16. Tose 963 determinations relate to appointments andreappointments o conservators. Alameda Courts case managementsystem could not distinguish between conservatorships with rearmrestrictions and those that did not have restrictions. However,based on a random sample o cases reviewed and its discussionwith county counsel that rearm prohibition language is includedin such orders as a general rule, the court indicated that 100 percento its conservatorship orders contained rearm prohibitions. Tus,these determinations should have been reported to Justice. AlamedaCourts court services manager stated that because the court

was not aware o the reporting requirement, it had no policies orprocedures to report these determinations to Justice. However, thecourt services manager also stated that the court is taking stepsto report such determinations to Justice now that it is aware othe requirement.

6 In October 2013 the governor signed legislation, which will take eect January 1, 2014, and willchange the time rames within which courts must report their mental health determinations.Specically, courts will no longer be required to report immediately but will be required to reportas soon as possible but not later than two court days ater the determination.

At the same time that 29 o the

34 courts we surveyed were

unaware o the rearm reporting

requirements, many o those

courts stated that they made

determinations between 2010

and 2012 that should have been

reported to Justice.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

25/107

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

26/107


October 2013

20

they submit to the court to specically include the request or aprohibition i warranted. Such an eort appears necessary given the

dierences between the practices at the San Francisco Court andother courts we surveyed.

Despite Being Aware o Potential Underreporting, Justice Has Not

Reminded Courts o the Reporting Requirement

When courts do not report mental health determinations as statelaw requires, Justice cannot identiy armed persons with mentalillness eectively. Despite this, and despite being aware that somecourts do not report the required mental health inormation,until our audit Justice perormed no outreach to courts to remind

them o the reporting requirement, and it still has not ollowed upwith courts that do not report. Te courts we surveyed indicatedthat they did not receive communication rom Justice about therequirement to report at any time rom 2010 through 2012.Te assistant chie o Justices Bureau o Firearms (assistant bureauchie) and the manager o Justices raining Inormation andCompliance Section (training unit manager) reported that Justicedistributed an inormation bulletin to the courts regarding thereporting requirements in 1991. However, the training unit managerwas unable to locate the bulletin and stated that Justice has notprovided rearm reporting training to individual courts. Accordingto the assistant bureau chie, Justice did not conduct outreach to thecourts because it believes it does not have the authority to requireor enorce courts to comply with the reporting requirementscontained in state law. Instead, Justice believes the AdministrativeOce o the Courts (AOC) is responsible or ensuring that courtsare in compliance with state law.

Te AOC is the sta agency or the Judicial Council, which is thepolicymaking body or Caliornias court system. Ater the start oour audit, in April 2013, AOC contacted Justice to obtain a betterunderstanding o how courts were reporting required mentalhealth inormation and how Justice used the reported inormation.

According to Justices assistant bureau chie, a supervising researchanalyst with AOC wanted to discuss courts that appeared not to bereporting. Around the time o this discussion, the assistant bureauchie sent AOC inormation about which courts Justice receivedreports rom and how many reports these courts submitted.

This lack o inormation could also aect Justices decision to allow an individual to purchasea rearm i he or she is not currently a rearm owner. As discussed in the Introduction, thisbackground check process, which another unit per orms, was not the ocus o this report.

AOC provided internal emails indicating that another sta person had attempted to reach out toJustice in February 2013 during research on rearm prohibition requirements. However, we sawno email documentation o any communication between AOC and Justice until the April 2013contact we discuss.

The courts we surveyed indicated

that they did not receive

communication rom Justice

about the requirement to report at

any time rom 2010 through 2012.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

27/107


October 2013

Ater this contact with Justice, AOC contacted all superior courtspresiding judges and court executive ocers by email in May 2013

to remind them o the reporting requirements and to inorm themabout this audit. AOCs email also explained that Justice wouldbe sending additional inormation to the courts about reportingindividuals with mental illness. Justices assistant bureau chiestated that since April or May 2013, he has experienced a rise inthe number o calls rom AOC and courts regarding reportingrearm prohibitions. In August 2013 Justice issued an inormationbulletin that reminds courts about the requirements and providesinstructions about how to report individuals with mental illness.Additionally, Justice provided the orms courts should use orreporting. AOC has indicated that it will work to ensure thatthis inormation is incorporated into appropriate trainings

or the courts.

In the absence o comprehensive outreach to address nonreporting,Justice did appear to practice some limited outreach to courts thatsubmit incomplete reports to its mental health unit. A programtechnician in the mental health unit conrmed that it was thepractice o unit sta to call courts that submit incomplete reports.In act, one o the courts we surveyed stated that in March 2013Justice contacted it to explain that its reports were incomplete.

Justice is in a unique position to conduct outreach to the courts.As the recipient o the reported inormation, Justice is the onlyentity that is aware o the extent to which courts statewide arereporting. Tereore, Justice needs to participate in any eort totrack noncompliance with state law or to remind courts that appearto underreport mental health determinations. Justice and the AOCcan benet rom working together to ensure that courts know whatstate law requires them to report and how to submit a report toJustice. Such a collaboration will ensure that Justice has done all itcan to identiy individuals that state law prohibits rom possessingrearms because o a mental healthrelated court determination.

Reporting Courts We Visited Failed to Submit Some Types o MentalHealth Determinations to Justice

Although not all courts were submitting required reports to Justice,other courts were reporting prohibited individuals to Justices mentalhealth unit. However, we ound that although these courts reportedsome determinations, they did not report all o the required mentalhealth events to Justice. In addition to surveying nonreportingcourts, we visited courts in three countiesLos Angeles,San Bernardino, and Santa Clarathat were reporting inormationto Justice, and we reviewed their procedures and practices todetermine whether these courts complied with the reporting

Justice and the AOC can benet

rom working together to ensure

that courts know what state law

requires them to report and how

to submit a report to Justice.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

28/107


October 2013

22

requirements in state law. As we discuss in the Introduction, statelaw requires courts to report certain mental health determinations

to Justice immediately ater making those determinations. In somecases, court sta were unaware o the requirement to report certaindeterminations, or the courts procedures did not specically directit to report some types o required determinations. Further, somecourt practices were insucient to ensure that the court reportedall required court determinations to Justice. When courts do notsubmit the inormation state law requires, Justice must rely onincomplete inormation to identiy persons with mental illness whoare prohibited rom possessing rearms. Consequently, Justice isless likely to identiy and disarm all armed prohibited persons.

Los Angeles Court Failed to Report Certain Mental Health Determinations

Data obtained rom Justice shows that Los Angeles Courtreports the largest number o mental health prohibiting events toJustices mental health unit. Despite reporting the largest volumeo mental health determinations, Los Angeles Court ailed toreport 15 o the 27 determinations we reviewed. Most o theseunreported determinations were rom Los Angeles Courts MentalHealth Courthouse, which is a centralized court location orcases involving mental health disorders and mental health legalissues. We also reviewed mental health determinations made atLos Angeles Courts Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center(Criminal Justice Center), which processes the greatest volumeo cases related to criminal oenses. Although this court locationdoes not deal exclusively with mental health issues, we ound itdid not always report those determinations that were related toan individuals mental competency.

Despite serving as the centralized courthouse or mentalhealthrelated cases, sta at the Mental Health Courthouse werenot aware o several types o court determinations that state lawrequires the court to report to Justice. Specically, sta wereunaware that the court was required to report determinations

regarding mental competency to stand trial, ndings that a person isa danger to others, and court reappointments o conservatorships.According to a court administrator, or the threeyear period wereviewed, the Mental Health Courthouse reported only originalappointments or early terminations o conservatorships to Justice.Te administrator stated that his courthouse had not receivedguidance rom Justice regarding reporting requirements and didnot have a contact at Justice rom which the court could requestassistance. Regardless, it is the courts responsibility to reportprohibiting events to Justice as directed by state law.

Despite reporting the largest

volume o mental health

determinations, Los Angeles

Court ailed to report 15 o the

27 determinations we reviewed.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

29/107


October 2013

We also ound that, beore our audit began, the Mental HealthCourthouse lacked written procedures to ensure that sta were

reporting mental health determinations to Justice. Instead, thecourt administrator stated that sta were trained verbally onwhat duties were expected o them in their position. Te courtadministrator explained that at the Mental Health Courthouse,a rearm report orm is printed only i a judicial assistant makes anentry on the court order to refect that a judge has applied a rearmprohibition to a conserved individual. Tereore, a notation on thecourt order is the evidence that the court had printed a report tosubmit to Justice.

We reviewed 17 mental health determinations at the Mental HealthCourthouse and ound the courthouse also was not consistently

ollowing its own stated practices or reporting. For 12 o the17 determinations, we ound no evidence that the courthousereported its determination to Justice. Although some o thesewere determinations the Mental Health Courthouse admitted itwas not reporting, among the determinations that the court knewit should report, we still ound unreported cases. Specically,we ound that or two o the ve conservatorship appointments wereviewed, the court order did not refect the judicial assistantsentry to print a report or Justice. In contrast, although thecourthouse claims to have been unaware that it was required toreport reappointed conservatorships, we ound court orders ortwo reappointments that indicated that the judicial assistant hadprinted a report to send to Justice.

Te administrator at the Mental Health Courthouse stated that,ater we inormed Los Angeles Court that we would be visitingthe court as part o this audit, he researched the courthousesreporting practices and began work on new procedures to addressdeterminations the courthouse was not reporting to Justice. InJuly 2013 the courthouse established new written procedures and anew rearm report orm that identies all court ndings that shouldbe reported to Justice. However, we noted that the new proceduresdo not discuss quality control steps, such as supervisory review and

other monitoring processes, that could help the courthouse ensurethat it submits all o its relevant court determinations. Revisingthese new procedures to include these elements would benet thecourthouse as it alters its practices to comply with state law.

Although the Criminal Justice Center was aware o therequirements to report individuals with mental illness toJustice as state law requires, it did not report all court ndings

Because the courthouse hears civil cases as well as certain elony and misdemeanor cases, wechose 15 cases relating to civil determinations and two relating to criminal determinations.We reviewed additional criminal determinations at the Criminal Justice Center.

Revising its new procedures toinclude quality control steps would

benet the courthouse as it alters its

practices to comply with state law.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

30/107


October 2013

24

that an individual was mentally incompetent or that anindividual had regained his or her competence to stand trial.

For 10 determinations judges made at the Criminal Justice Center,we ound three determinations that were not reported to Justice.One o the three cases was a court nding that determined anindividual was incompetent to stand trial, and two cases were courtndings that restored an individuals competency. It is likely that theCriminal Justice Centers ailure to report the latter two cases relatesto a problem with its practices or reporting court determinations.According to a court administrator at the Criminal Justice Center,current courtroom procedures do not require the judicial assistantto send the case or processing when the court has made adetermination that restoration o competence has occurred. Sheagreed that the current courtroom procedure needs to be reviewed

and amended to require immediate reporting o competencydeterminations as state law requires.

The San Bernardino Superior Court Did Not Report Findings That

Individuals Were Mentally Incompetent to Stand Trial

Te San Bernardino Superior Court (San Bernardino Court) servesone o the most populated counties in Caliornia, and Justicesrecords show that the county has a relatively large percentage othe total number o prohibited persons in the State. However, itscriminal division at the central courthouse that handles the largestvolume o cases did not report any o the 15 determinations omental incompetence to stand trial that we reviewed. Further,although a court supervisor noted that the determinations areinrequent, the probate division at the same central courthouse didnot report any early terminations o conservatorships.

Although San Bernardino Courts criminal division initially believedit was electronically reporting all required inormation to Justice,we ound that the court was not reporting any o its determinationsrelated to mental incompetence. Specically, in all 15 courtdeterminations we reviewed, we did not nd evidence that the

criminal division reported its mental incompetency determinationsto Justice. Further, as we discuss later in the chapter, we ound thatone o the 15 determinations was related to a rearm owner. Whenwe discussed the lack o reporting with the courts district manager,she acknowledged that it was the courts oversight that inormationregarding mental incompetence was not being transmitted with theelectronic dispositions.

Unlike ndings that an individual is incompetent to stand trial, restorations o competency tostand trial restore an individuals right to possess a rearm under state law. State law requirescourts to report both the determination that an individual is incompetent to stand trial and thedetermination that an individual has regained competency.

San Bernardino Courts criminal

division at the central courthouse

did not report any o the

15 determinations o mental

incompetence to stand trial

that we reviewed.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

31/107


October 2013

Additionally, San Bernardino Courts probate division doesnot report a particular type o court determination to Justice.

Te probate division has not notied Justice o any courtdeterminations to terminate an individuals conservatorshipbeore the originally scheduled expiration date. A court orderterminating a conservatorship early would remove an individualsrearm prohibition under state law. According to the courts districtmanager, the probate division was aware that it was not reportingearly terminations o conservatorships, but it believed that theormer conservator had the responsibility to provide the court witha rearm report orm. Further, the court supervisor stated that thecourt rarely orders early terminations. Regardless o the reason whythe probate division chose not to report early terminations, statelaw requires the court to notiy Justice o any early terminations.

Tereore, i the probate division continues its practice o notreporting these early terminations, it will not be in compliancewith state law.

We also reviewed 15 determinations that the probate divisionstated was its practice to report to Justice. For all 15 cases, we ounda rearm report orm in the case le, which indicated that thecourt had made a report to Justice. Although our testing indicatedthat the probate division did report to Justice or these cases, thedivisions procedures regarding mental health cases do not inormsta about when or how they should complete and submit a rearmreport orm to Justice. Instead, the court supervisor explained thatwhen they assume a position, sta are trained by shadowing othersta until they are considered knowledgeable.

In August 2013, ater we discussed San Bernardino Courts lacko reporting in both its criminal and its probate divisions withthe courts district manager, the court developed new proceduresto ensure that sta report the required determinations to Justice.Specically, the court developed procedures or its criminal divisionto ensure that sta print a rearm report orm to mail to Justicewhen there is a determination relating to mental incompetence.Additionally, the court revised its probate procedures or sta

to report early terminations o conservatorships to Justice.Implementing and ollowing the procedures or each divisionwill reduce the risk o San Bernardino Court ailing to report aprohibited person with mental illness to Justice.

An early termination o a conservatorship can occur i the individual petitions the court ora status hearing beore the scheduled termination date and the court determines that theindividual no longer needs to be conserved.

In August 2013, ater we discussed

San Bernardino Courts lack o

reporting in both its criminal and

its probate divisions with the

courts district manager, the court

developed new procedures.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

32/107


October 2013

26

The Santa Clara Superior Court Should Improve Its Reporting o Mental

Health Determinations

According to inormation Justice provided us, the Santa ClaraSuperior Court (Santa Clara Court) reported a relatively consistentnumber o mental health determinations to Justices mental healthunit during the threeyear period we reviewed. Although it hasprocedures or reporting mental health determinations, Santa Claraslargest criminal courthouse, the Hall o Justice (criminal division),did not consistently report all o its determinations to Justice. Inthe criminal division, we reviewed 15 determinations that state lawrequires the court to report to Justice, and we ound that only eight othe cases had a rearm report orm in the le indicating that the courthad reported the individual to Justice. For the seven determinations

where we did not a nd a rearm report orm in the le, we oundthat one determination was recorded in Justices mental healthdatabase, indicating that the court reported to Justice despite notkeeping a report orm in the case le. Te director o Criminal andrac (criminal division director) and a court manager explainedthat the sta tasked with processing reports to Justice may not alwaysreceive the necessary inormation to notiy them that a rearm reportorm should be sent to Justice. However, ater we shared the results oour testing, Santa Clara Courts criminal division director provided uswith new reporting procedures or sta and stated that supervisors ormanagers will monitor a weekly report that will allow them to ensurethat all court determinations are reported to Justice.

Santa Clara Courts probate division also did not reportall required types o court determinations to Justice. Morespecically, the probate division did not notiy Justice about anyo its determinations where the court terminated an individualsconservatorship early. According to the director o the civil division,the court was not reporting early terminations o conservatorshipsbecause the court orders did not contain language specicallyterminating all the terms o the original conservatorship. However,she explained that the court would now begin working with thepublic deender and the judicial ocers to ensure that the orders

to terminate a conservatorship will include language to removerearm prohibitions. Additionally, the probate division did notreport court determinations that committed an individual toa mental health acility or an extended period ater an initialinvoluntary hold. Te director stated that the court would nowbegin reporting these courtordered commitments to a mentalhealth acility even though they believe that the mental healthacilities are already reporting these individuals to Justice.

Our testing indicated that the probate division reportedindividuals to Justice i it was its practice to report that type odetermination. We reviewed 15 determinations at the probate

Ater we shared the results o our

testing, Santa Clara Courts criminal

division director provided us with

new reporting procedures or sta.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

33/107


October 2013

division. For 14 conservatorship cases we reviewed, we ounda rearm report orm in the case le, indicating that the court

reported the determination to Justice. We reviewed one additionaldetermination, which was a courtordered commitment to a mentalhealth acility. As previously discussed, the court had not reportedthis determination because it believed that reporting responsibilitybelonged to the mental health acility.

Finally, we noted that the probate division could improve theaccuracy o the report orms it submits to Justice. Te writtenprocedures and practices or the probate division do not includeverication o all inormation on the rearm report orm, whichwe ound led to inaccurate reports. For example, or three o14 conservatorship cases we reviewed, the scheduled termination

date or an individuals conservatorship was incorrect by two weeksto eight months. According to a court clerk, when the probatedivision receives a petition or an appointment or reappointment oa conservatorship, the county counsel provides the probate divisionwith a rearm report orm, and the counsel has already completedthe subject inormation and the scheduled termination elds o theorm. However, a judge may continue a case or several weeks, andthe termination date or the conservatorship may change rom theoriginal planned date. Even though this may happen in some cases,the court clerk who sends the rearm report orm to Justice veriesonly the subject name and the case number beore sending theorm. Incorrect termination dates may result in Justice prolongingor prematurely ending a persons state prohibition on possessing arearm. Ater we discussed this issue with Santa Clara Court, thedirector o the civil division stated that court sta will implementa review process and obtain the correct termination date beoresubmitting a report to Justice.

Courts Incomplete Reporting Results in a Lack o Critical Inormation

at Justice

Te gap in court practices results in unreported individuals

with mental illness, and Justice will be less likely to identiy thatthese individuals are prohibited rom possessing rearms andconscate the rearms they do possess. For the 28 prohibitingcourt determinations we tested with no evidence o reporting atthe three courts we visited, we perormed procedures at Justice todetermine the eect o the courts ailure to report. Unreportedcourt determinations that were associated with rearm ownershinder Justices ability to identiy individuals with mental illness

When Justice determines an individual is prohibited rom owning a rearm, it appliesederal prohibitions to that individual i the duration o the ederal prohibition is longer thanCaliornias prohibition. We discuss this subject in Chapter 2.

The gap in court practices results in

unreported individuals with mentalillness, and Justice will be less likely

to identiy that these individuals are

prohibited rom possessing rearms

and conscate the rearms they

do possess.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

34/107


October 2013

28

who should have their rearms conscated. Further, unreporteddeterminations may also aect whether an individual can pass a

background check as a rearm purchaser.

For some individuals, another entity besides the court had alreadyreported a mental health prohibiting event to Justice, or thecourt itsel had reported a previous event. Nevertheless, state lawrequires courts to report mental health determinations to Justice,and the courts cannot rely on other entities to do this. Relying onother entities risks that an individual will go unreported and thatan individual with court ndings related to mental health will gounidentied. In act, in our o the 28 unreported cases, we oundthat at the time courts ailed to report a mental health determinationto Justice, the individual subject to the court determination did not

have another mental health prohibiting event recorded in JusticesAutomated Criminal History System or its mental health database.Tereore, there was no inormation related to mental healthprohibitions that would have prevented these individuals rom passinga background check i they attempted to purchase a rearm ollowingtheir court determination. As we mention in the Introduction, theocus o this audit is on mental health prohibiting events; thereore,we reviewed these individuals histories only or mental health events.However, it is possible that some other event not related to mentalhealth prohibited these individuals rom possessing rearms.

In two additional cases, Los Angeles Courts Criminal JusticeCenter and San Bernardino Courts criminal division ailedto report determinations that were related to rearm owners.However, in each o these cases, another entity had already reporteda mental health prohibiting event or the individual to Justice.Tereore, although the courts ailed to notiy Justice o theirmental health determination, these individuals should have alreadybeen identied as armed prohibited persons. I these individualshad not had a prior prohibiting event, the courts ailure to reportcould have led Justice to ail to determine that these individualswere prohibited rom possessing a rearm. When we examinedthese two individuals in Justices Armed Prohibited Persons System

(APPS database), we were not able to nd them identied as armedprohibited persons because Justices review is limited to rearmrecords rom 1996 to present, which is ater these individualsobtained their rearms. We discuss this matter urther in Chapter 2.

Courts Are Not Always Timely in Submitting Reports to Justice

In addition to the visited courts not always reporting all theirrequired mental health determinations to Justice, we ound thatthe reports the courts did make were not always submitted toJustice in a timely manner. As discussed in the Introduction,

In two additional cases, Los Angeles

Courts Criminal Justice Center

and San Bernardino Courts

criminal division ailed to report

determinations that were related to

rearm owners.

7/27/2019 2013-103.pdf

35/107


October 2013

state law requires courts to immediately report certain mentalhealth determinations to Justice. However, the law does not

dene immediately. Consequently, courts we visited had dieringinterpretations o what the law meant by that.

On average, or the items we tested, none o the court divisions wevisited that kept a record o the date they sent reports met their owndenitions oimmediately. For instance, Santa Clara Courts criminaldivision interpreted immediately as called or in state law to meantwo to three business days or as soon as possible. However, we oundthat or the items we tested, the average time Santa Clara Court took toprocess and submit rearm report orms was more than our businessdays. In one instance, court sta did not report a determination toJustice until 13 business days ater the court determination date.

Similarly, Santa Clara Courts probate division exceeded itsinterpretation oimmediately by two business days on average. Further,Los Angeles Courts Criminal Justice Center dened immediately aswithin two court days, which is generally equivalent to business days,but exceeded that denition by six days on average or the items wetested. For one particular determination, the Criminal Justice Centersta did not complete the rearm report orm until 28 business daysater the court determination date. A senior administrator at theCriminal Justice Center noted that our calculation does not distinguishbetween the dates the ndings were made in the courtroom and thedates the ndings were received in the clerks oce. Although that istrue, when discussing how

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aaron-moore
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

2013-103.pdf

Documents