Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is urging California voters to approve a ballot initiative that he says is imperative to tackle the state’s homelessness crisis, but which social providers say could threaten programs that prevent homelessness in the first place. Proposition 1 would give the state more control over how money from a 2004 tax on millionaires to finance mental health services is spent. The program has generated $2-3 billion annually, which has mostly gone to counties to fund mental health programs as those counties see fit. The bill on the March 5 ballot would require counties to spend 60 percent of those funds on housing and programs for unhoused people with serious mental illness or substance abuse issues. The unilateral formula would mean rural counties with lower homeless populations would be required to divert the same percentage of funds as more densely-populated counties with much higher numbers of unhoused people. In one such rural county, Butte, officials said the change could defund cultural centers, peer support programs, vocational services, and even programs that work with the county’s homeless population.
The two-phase measure on the ballot would also authorize the state to borrow $6.38 billion to build 4,350 housing units—half of which would be reserved for veterans—and to add 6,800 beds to mental health and addiction treatment centers. California currently has only 5,500 beds statewide, down from about 37,000 just 50 years ago. Nearly one-in-three unhoused people in the United States reside in California. Some mental health and addiction treatment advocates say Prop 1 could force more people into involuntary treatment. The Mental Health Association of San Francisco, which treats about 15,000 patients per month, came out in vehement opposition to the proposal, with Executive Director Mark Salazar saying, “There are studies that show over and over that coercing treatment just doesn’t end well for the individual.” Others agree that while more housing and treatment beds are desperately needed, those measures shouldn’t come at the expense of other programs that actively keep people off the streets.
|