Some Orange County Supervisors are questioning exactly what kind of impacts state Proposition 1 could have on the county’s mental health funding and efforts to address homelessness.
At the upcoming March 5 primary election, voters will decide on Prop. 1– a $6.4 billion bond aimed at increasing mental health centers and converting more motels into affordable housing for homeless people.
It would also redirect a portion of mental health money earmarked for local counties and force local officials to spend a remaining third of the funding on motel conversions – a move the county’s chief mental health doctor says means a reduction of over $150 million on mental health spending.
[Read: Will California’s Prop 1 Help Curb Homelessness or Cut Mental Health Programs?]
At their Tuesday meeting, Supervisor Doug Chaffee and Supervisor Chair Don Wagner criticized the proposition, arguing it would strip local control from county governments on how they address mental health issues.
Wagner said the proposition would create a fundamental shift away from what local officials decide is the best way to spend the money and that Sacramento believes local control is “overrated.”
“That’s the mindset out of Sacramento. That is the Kool-Aid that has been drunk by everybody up there, they get elected, and they are suddenly smarter and funnier and better looking than they were the day before they got elected,” he said during Tuesday’s meeting.
“The locals are the ones that ought be allowed to make those decisions.”
Chaffee agreed with Wagner and said the proposition could reduce mental health dollars to the over 50 programs instituted by the county.
“Local jurisdictions are inherently more attuned to the specific mental health needs of their population,” he said. “I think over time, we’ll see more people in the street than fewer if this passes.”
Chaffee unsuccessfully called on supervisors to take a formal stand against the proposition, but his proposal failed to gain enough support.
“I’m a little disturbed by the idea that we would use the levers of government to weigh in on the vote of the people,” Wagner said, adding county officials should stay away from taking a formal stance on the issue.
Supervisor Katrina Foley agreed with the county supervisor board not formally weighing in on the ballot proposition, but said that the money wasn’t going to be lost – just shifted.
“While something might not be able to be funded with Mental Health Service Act dollars that can still be funded with CalAIM,” Foley said. “The housing priority is critical.”
She also said the changes will also bring more accountability on how the money is spent and opportunity to review mental health contracts.
“There’s, in my opinion, a lot of waste in the system,” Foley said.
Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento was also against taking a formal stand opposing the proposition and said that money for housing wasn’t a bad thing.
He said the county had been spending mental health dollars responsibly.
“We’re sort of being penalized for maybe other counties that haven’t used their resources as thoughtfully and as wise and effectively as we have,” Sarmiento said.
What Will Prop. 1 Do?
One of the biggest concerns regarding Prop. 1 by critics is that it will allow the state to take a bigger chunk of mental health tax dollars split by Sacramento and local county governments.
Proponents like Gov. Gavin Newsom, law enforcement and veteran groups across California say the measure will expand mental health services, help homeless vets and create more housing for homeless people.
California’s Legislative Analyst Office says counties would see a reduction from 95% of the share of the Mental Health Services Act funding to 90%, while the state would get 10%.
If approved, $140 million a year would be shifted from the counties to the state.
Meanwhile, the bond would fund 6,800 mental illness and addiction beds as well as 4,350 homes – more than half for veterans, according to the state’s legislative analyst office.
The bond could also help convert motels to affordable housing by allocating $2 billion in funding to Project Homekey.
How Will it Impact OC?
Currently, 76% of the mental health dollars the county gets is spent on community support services, 19% is spent on preventing mental health illnesses and 5% is spent on research to develop new programs to treat mental illness, according to Dr. Veronica Kelley, behavioral health director of the Orange County Health Care Agency.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Kelley said the county would have to spend 30% of the money on housing through subsidies and building affordable homes if Prop. 1 is approved.
The proposition would require the county to spend close to $30 million more of their mental health dollars on housing for people with mental health issues than they planned.
Kelley also said 35% would have to go to partnerships for supportive services for people with mental health illnesses.
The county currently budgeted $99 million for such partnerships using the mental health dollars.
If approved, they would only be allowed to to spend close to $61 million of the funding to such partnerships.
Kelley said the last 35% can be spent on behavioral mental health services and more than half of it has to go toward prevention services.
If approved, they would only be allowed to to spend close to $61 million of the funding on such services.
Kelley said that this “will result in a $150 million shift or reduction” in the mental health money they had initially planned to spend on behavioral health services.
Hosam Elattar is a Voice of OC reporter and corps member with Report for America, a GroundTruth initiative. Contact him at helattar@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @ElattarHosam.
•••
Since you’ve made it this far,
You obviously care about local news and value good journalism. Help us become 100% reader funded with a tax deductible donation. For as little as $5 a month you can help us reach that goal.