SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Proposition 1, a statewide ballot measure that voters will decide on in the March 5 election, would enact sweeping changes to California’s mental health system. But not everyone is thrilled with those proposed changes, with some mental-health advocates and even local officials speaking out against it.
Promoted by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, the measure seeks to tackle the state’s homelessness problem through a $6.4 billion bond to pay for housing for those struggling with addiction or other mental-health issues. It would also pay for more mental health care and drug/alcohol treatment centers and would change how funds from the Mental Health Services Act are used.
Supporters and opponents tend to agree on that much. But opinions diverge on the question of whether Proposition 1 is positive for the state — or whether it could actually achieve its lofty goals. After all, there’s a large gulf between Newsom’s “Treatment not Tents” messaging and the groups that oppose the proposition.
Proposition 1 is the moniker given to two bills signed last year by Newsom. While the governor has signed the bills, a vote by California residents is required to make them a reality.
Assembly Bill 531 — introduced by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Thousand Oaks Democrat — would create the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act of 2024. Some $6.4 billion in bonds would pay for permanent supportive housing and would help fund behavioral health treatment centers.
Senate Bill 326 — written by state Senator Susan Eggman, a Stockton Democrat — would make changes to the Mental Health Services Act. Under those changes, mental-health funding could go toward treating substance use disorders in addition to other mental health conditions.
Under Proposition 1, some $140 million of existing annual tax revenue that funds addiction and mental health treatment would shift from counties to the state, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. The Golden State would also have about $310 million in annual bond payments for 30 years.
The proposition is endorsed by over 30 organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce. “Homelessness is a crisis that’s obviously something California needs to deal with,” Jennifer Barrera, president and CEO of the Sacramento-based chamber, said in a phone interview with Courthouse News. “We see it in the street. We see it deteriorating our communities.”
The chamber has over 13,000 members statewide, representing every industry in the economy. In polls conducted by the chamber, those members have repeatedly listed homelessness as a top priority.
Homelessness is a complex issue, and Proposition 1 wouldn’t totally fix it, Barrera said. However, she thinks the measure provides the state with a strategy to start addressing key components of the problem, like substance abuse and mental health.
Addressing criticisms made by opponents of the measure, Barrera stresses that Proposition 1 will change funding priorities rather than cutting services. Money must be used for specific purposes, and counties will be held accountable. “The accountability for these funds is really important for these members,” she said.
Proposition 1 wouldn’t raise taxes, as the $6.4 billion would come from a bond issuance. Still, it would change how much money counties get in Mental Health Services Act funding.
State programs currently get 5% or less of those dollars, while county programs get 95% or more. Proposition 1 would instead send at least 10% of that funding to the state, with the remainder going to counties.
Changes like that have led Paul Simmons, cofounder of the California Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, to oppose Proposition 1. “It’s taking a billion dollars a year out of mental health services,” he said in a phone interview. “End of story.”
Currently, Mental Health Services Act funding for counties is used, perhaps unsurprisingly, for mental health services, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
