A statewide ballot measure is kicking up a host of concerns across Orange County – chiefly whether it will spike the number of problematic group homes – an issue cities throughout the county are already grappling with.
The measure, known as Prop 1, authorizes $6.4 billion in bonds to create more housing for homeless people and drug treatment centers and was narrowly passed by voters in the March 5 primary election.
It’s also changing how state tax money is spent on drug abuse and mental health treatment programs in local communities.
[Read: How Will California’s Prop. 1 Impact Orange County’s Mental Health Funding?]
Proponents say the measure is a much-needed approach to curbing the homeless crisis by building more housing, getting more treatment for people and giving state officials more flexibility on how mental health tax money is spent.
But critics say the measure erodes local control and could mean more problematic group homes in the county, especially in coastal Orange County cities, by streamlining development of the homes in neighborhoods.
Even before the California Secretary of State certified that Golden State voters passed the measure on a razor-thin margin last Friday, fallout has already been seen throughout the county.
Some Orange County cities – Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Orange – have left the League of California Cities over the municipal lobbying organization’s support for Prop. 1, saying it could proliferate virtually unregulated drug treatment homes in neighborhoods.
[Read: Third Orange County City Leaves CA League of Cities Over Prop 1]
Orange County voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure by more than 100,000 votes. The measure passed statewide by just over 26,000 votes.
A Proliferation of Group Homes?
Many local officials, especially in Newport Beach, have raised concerns the statewide measure could mean more drug abuse and mental health treatment homes in neighborhoods, where many create public nuisances due to a lack of oversight.
[Read: Newport Beach Bails on CA League of Cities Over Prop 1]
“Proposition 1 would give up to $4.4 billion to the state program that builds more places for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment. The types of places that would be built with bond funds would depend on future decisions by the state,” according to the CA Legislative Analyst’s Office, noting local governments and tribes will get $1.5 billion of that money.
“How much counties would spend on different services would depend on future decisions by the counties and the state. The proposition also allows counties to use MHSA [Mental Health Services Act] money on treatment for drugs and alcohol for people without a mental illness,” the analyst’s office said.
According to a January analysis conducted by Townsend Public Affairs group for Mission Viejo, Prop 1 would streamline the development of such homes.
It’s an issue cities throughout Orange County – especially along the coast – already struggle with.
Last year, the OC Grand Jury pointed out how the loose regulation and enforcement over the homes have created public nuisances for residential neighborhoods throughout the county.
“Orange County has some of the heaviest concentrations of group homes and sober living residences in the nation. The densities are more than the local population can bear and residents believe the influx of the group home residents seriously impacts their neighborhoods,” grand jurors wrote in their report.
Orange County Health Care Agency Director, Dr. Veronica Kelley, noted local officials have long been struggling to get the CA Department of Health Care Services – which oversees the state-licensed group homes – to crack down on public nuisance homes.
“As far as the Department of Health Care Services, sending people out to review a substance use disorder treatment facility, we see them when they do an initial licensing visit. And then that is it. Oftentimes the state will ask the local municipality to act on their behalf and go in and do evaluations or reviews. But we have not seen that here in Orange County,” Kelley told OC Supervisors at their March 26 meeting.
In an email to Voice of OC, department spokeswoman Ann Carroll said there are yearly inspections for mental health treatment homes.
She added that drug abuse treatment homes are inspected “once during their licensure or certification period, which is once every two years through an onsite compliance visit, when staff ensure compliance with applicable statutes and/or regulations.”
“DHCS takes violations of applicable regulations for licensed and/or certified programs seriously. Depending upon the violation, DHCS may take several actions, including citing violations, requiring a corrective action plan, assessing financial penalties, temporarily suspending a facility/program, and revoking DHCS licensure/certification,” Carroll said in an email.
A major problem cited by local and state officials is the lack of local enforcement on the group homes.
The Orange County Health Care Agency’s Behavioral Health Team said county officials can only regulate county-contracted homes, like some sober living homes.
“The Health Care Agency (HCA) does not have regulatory control over the recovery residences. The HCA has oversight regarding responsibilities for contract compliance for those facilities that are contracted with the county,” the team wrote in an email to Voice of OC.
“HCA contracts for Recovery Residences with providers who have been certified annually by the Orange County’s Sheriff’s Department, meeting their alcohol and drug sober living facilities certification standards,” the team wrote, adding that the county-contracted homes serve adults who’ve completed a county substance abuse program.
When asked if Prop. 1 could streamline development of problematic drug treatment homes, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office didn’t address the question.
“The Governor’s office worked closely with counties and other local governments to ensure that within the bond and the reform there was flexibility for local leaders to address local needs – including flexibility over the types of treatment centers they seek to fund through the Prop 1 bond, based on each individual counties assessed needs,” Newsom’s press office said through email.
Local State Legislators Eye Enforcement
Meanwhile, a host of Orange County’s state legislators from both political aisles are currently spearheading bills that could curb treatment homes that have turned into public nuisances.
[Read: CA State Bill Looks to Give Cities Regulation Over Sober Living Homes]
The most recent bill from State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) aims at giving cities more regulatory power over drug treatment homes.
He told Voice of OC the lack of enforcement is creating a fraudulent environment.
“I think we’ve developed somewhat of a fraud infrastructure here in a sense,” Umberg said in a March interview, noting the problematic homes are painting a negative picture for the rest.
“My vision is that this is a tool for cities to more effectively be able to enforce the law,” he said.
Some local officials have questioned if the California Department of Health Care Services has enough staff to oversee the drug abuse treatment homes.
Carroll, the department spokeswoman, said there’s enough staff “for the facilities DHCS licenses and oversees, sufficient staff are available to conduct compliance reviews and investigations statewide.”
“While the majority of these analysts are based at DHCS headquarters in Sacramento, five of them are located in a regional office in Southern California. However, all 59 analysts are responsible for compliance reviews and investigations involving licensed and/or certified SUD treatment facilities across the state,” she said.
Southern California is home to some of the most populated counties in the state, including Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
What Else Does Prop. 1 Do?
Prop. 1 is slated to shift the distribution of Mental Health Services Act money – a voter-approved tax on California residents making more than $1 million a year.
The portion of mental health services tax money for counties will be reduced from 95% to 90%, while the state will go from 5% to 10%.
The California Chamber of Commerce said the measure is sorely needed.
“The measure will provide the resources to help communities across the state recover from what has been an unprecedented mental health and homelessness crisis,” reads the chamber’s website.
“Proposition 1 authorizes nearly $6.4 billion in bonds and directs billions more annually to fix the broken mental health system and move people off the streets, out of tents and into treatment.”
But the California League of Women Voters said differently.
“The bond portion of the measure was rushed through the legislature with last-minute amendments that opened the door to funding involuntary treatment in locked facilities. The rushed nature of these amendments precluded substantive debate and ignored arguments from diverse community-based organizations and health care and civil rights advocates,” reads the league’s website.
The remainder of the $6.4 billion in bonds – $2 billion – is aimed at building housing for homeless people through California’s Homekey program, which converts motels into housing.
Half of that $2 billion is slated for homeless veterans.
Newsom, who spearheaded Prop. 1 efforts, touted the measure’s impacts to the Homekey program.
“This is the momentum and scale to address this crisis and to fundamentally make a dent the California taxpayers expect and deserve,” Newsom said during a March 28 news conference at a Motel 6 conversion in Costa Mesa. “You’re also addressing blight at the same time.”
But the state Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the housing aspects of Prop. 1 will have a minimal effect on California’s overall homeless population.
“The state government estimates the bond would build up to 4,350 housing units, with 2,350 set aside for veterans. The bond would provide housing to over 20 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness. The number of housing units built by the bond would reduce statewide homelessness by only a small amount,” reads the office’s analysis.
While the analyst’s office says the measure won’t help many homeless people with the Homekey program, California State Auditor Grant Parks said the program – so far – seems to be a success compared to a host of other homeless initiatives the auditor found lacking critical data, like results.
“As we previously explain, Homekey—which focuses on converting existing buildings into housing units for people at risk of or experiencing homelessness—appears cost‑effective when compared to the cost of building new affordable housing units. This saves time and money and allows Homekey to create more units and house more people,” reads the audit.
Spencer Custodio is the civic editor. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio.
•••
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.