###
Before:
###
Last month, California voters narrowly passed Proposition 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $6.4 billion plan to overhaul the state’s community mental health and substance abuse programs.
The two-pronged measure would use approximately $6.38 billion in bond proceeds to build treatment facilities and supportive housing. It would also change how counties spend revenue from the 1 percent “millionaire’s tax” known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which was approved by voters in 2004.
Supporters of Proposition 1, including VETS USA, the National Alliance on Mental Illness of California, and mayors of many cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, say this long-awaited reset will direct more resources to those who need it most. He claims to be deaf. , chronically homeless people with mental health diagnoses or addiction disorders.
But a coalition of opponents, who derided the election results as an “embarrassing victory cry,” argue that Prop. 1 would “steal” funding from existing mental health services administered by each county.
Currently, counties receive about 95 percent of available funding from MHSA, but that amount would be reduced to 90 percent if Prop. 1 were implemented, with an estimated $140 million per year going to the state instead. become.
Opponents also say that redirecting MHSA funds to housing construction would result in up to $1 billion in cuts to existing mental health programs, including comprehensive services such as crisis response, education, and employment assistance. There is.
Voters here in Humboldt County followed the statewide trend and approved Proposition 1 by a narrow margin. outpostOliver Gonzalez, the county’s MHSA program manager, said much of Prop. 1’s language is generalized and details have yet to be worked out to determine how Prop. 1 will impact local services. He said it was too early to do so.
“Of course, there are a lot of concerns from stakeholders and people in the community. [and] We had discussions across California about what that would mean for existing programs,” Gonzalez said. In Humboldt County, like other counties in the state, funding for MHSA programs will be cut across the board, but officials are now implementing new requirements to address substance use disorders and housing. I have to figure out how to implement it.
“I don’t even know how we’re going to accomplish 99 percent of what Prop. 1 proposes,” Gonzalez said. “We don’t have a language for it yet.”
Historically, local MHSA programs have been designed through a collaborative process with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Hope Center, the Humboldt County Transitional Youth Collaborative (HCTAYC), the Family Resource Center, the Behavioral Health Committee, and community members. I’m here. Chapter of the National Mental Health Alliance.
“MHSA has always been a very flexible revenue source that can be shaped to fit the unique needs of our county,” Gonzalez said. “With these new changes, we will have to deal with more regulations and more requirements with less money. And essentially we will have less stakeholder input.”
When Gonzalez last went around to stakeholders to talk about Prop. 1, many didn’t even know what it was or what its impact would be, and why it was so vague to Californians. Some asked if they would be asked to vote for something, he said. .
“But there were also kind of fundamental concerns…for example, what does that actually mean for existing programs? And again, this is an open question that still doesn’t have an answer.” said Gonzalez.
In the 20 years since voters passed the MHSA, the basis of its implementation has been that services are voluntary. In contrast, Proposition 1 would allow bond proceeds to be spent on involuntary treatment facilities. Meanwhile, last October, Newsom signed Senate Bill 43, which expands the definition of “severely disabled” and makes more people eligible for involuntary conservatorship.
Back in January, Humboldt County Behavioral Health Director Emi Botzler-Rogers told the Board of Supervisors that the bill could increase eligibility for such programs from about 1 percent of the population to about 10 percent. He said there is. The county is asking for implementation to be delayed until January 1, 2026.
“With these new additions and changes being made, the lines of what is voluntary and what is involuntary are becoming a little blurred,” Gonzalez said. “So a lot of advocates have expressed that concern.”
That concern is widespread across the state. At a recent meeting with MHSA directors from all 58 California counties, virtually all of them spoke about the questions and concerns being expressed by community members and the fact that MHSA directors don’t have many answers. , said Gonzalez. He said.
Under Proposition 1, the Mental Health Services Act would be renamed the Behavioral Health Services Act. Aside from some administrative changes that have already been made, most provisions of the measure will not take effect until July 1, 2026.
Gonzalez expects the state to issue “cleanup language” in the coming months that will clarify some provisions of the measure. He could then work with local stakeholders to revise the approach to accommodate the new reality, he said.
“Then you can at least start preparing to see exactly how you can deal with these changes, how to preserve your programs and protect them as much as possible. That’s really the ultimate concern. That’s why.”
