California Tightens Mental Health Diversion Rules

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a 2026 law, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, replacing the “unreasonable risk” test with a requirement that judges decide if community-based treatment would “endanger public safety,” defined as a risk of physical injury or serious danger. The bill, backed by state police unions and law-enforcement groups, passed the legislature, while the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights opposed it.

Calmatters

In 2018, California required judges to grant mental-health diversion for crimes when a diagnosis was a significant factor and the defendant did not pose an unreasonable risk. Diversion let people avoid incarceration, receive community treatment, and have convictions erased, aiding housing, education, and employment.

Calmatters

The new standard lets judges keep defendants in jail if community treatment is judged a risk, limiting diversion for non-violent offenders. Advocates say diversion has helped offset over-policing and disproportionate incarceration of people of color by clearing records, facilitating housing, education, and jobs. The law does not affect diversion for murder or certain sex-related offenses, excluded.

Calmatters

Gov. Newsom said it balances treatment and accountability while preserving diversion for those who can benefit. Nguyen argued judges were forced to grant diversion even when inappropriate, framing the change as justice for victims. Ella Baker Center called removal of diversion a regression that eliminates flexibility.

Calmatters

Critics say it reduces access to mental-health treatment for defendants whose condition contributed to the offense, undermining a measure that lowers recidivism and supports reintegration. They warn it increase reliance on incarceration and deepen disparities in criminal-justice system.

Calmatters

• “California believes treatment and accountability go hand in hand. We are proud to preserve mental health diversion for people who can benefit from it while ensuring judges have the discretion they need to protect victims, safeguard communities, and make decisions based on the full picture before them.” — Gov. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

Calmatters

• “Even if a judge believes diversion is not appropriate, they may still be forced to grant it.” — Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove

Calmatters

• “That’s not justice. It’s not fair to victims, and it’s not fair to communities who expect the courts to keep them safe.” — Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, D-Elk Grove

Calmatters

• “Removing the option is a step backward for California, eliminating much-needed flexibility and discretion.” — Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Letter of Opposition

Calmatters

The law takes effect in 2026, and judges will begin applying the public-safety test in sentencing. Groups plan to monitor diversion rates and seek legislative changes if usage drops sharply.

Calmatters