California’s mental health crisis is at a boiling point, and Governor Gavin Newsom is fed up. In a bold move, he’s threatening to pull funding from counties he believes are dragging their feet on his flagship mental health initiative, CARE Court. But here’s where it gets controversial: while some counties are being praised for their efforts, others are pushing back, claiming they’re being unfairly targeted. Let’s dive into the details and explore why this program, designed to help the most vulnerable, is sparking such heated debate.
Launched in 2023, CARE Court aims to use the legal system to connect Californians with severe mental illness to treatment, housing, and support. The goal? To lift people out of homelessness and psychosis when other programs have failed. By the end of 2023, the program rolled out in eight counties, expanding statewide by December 2024. Yet, despite its promise, a CalMatters investigation reveals it’s falling short of expectations. And this is the part most people miss: while the state received 3,817 petitions for care, judges have only approved 893 treatment agreements, and a mere 32 individuals have been court-ordered into CARE plans. That’s a far cry from the 7,000 to 12,000 people Newsom’s administration initially estimated would qualify.
Newsom didn’t hold back during a recent press conference, calling out 10 counties—Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Kern, Riverside, Yolo, Monterey, and Fresno—for what he sees as lackluster performance. “I’m happy to redirect every damn penny in these programs to the counties that are getting things done,” he declared. But Orange County fired back, insisting it’s fully utilizing CARE Court and has already helped 79 participants access housing, medication, and other services.
On the flip side, Newsom praised counties like Alameda, Humboldt, and Santa Barbara for their success. Alameda County Judge Sandra Bean shared a heartwarming story of a woman with developmental disabilities, substance use disorder, and mental illness who now has her own apartment and is on medication. But here’s the kicker: the metrics Newsom’s administration uses to measure success—like the number of petitions per capita—don’t tell the whole story. For instance, San Diego County, with the most CARE Court graduations (10), didn’t make the “CARE champion” list, while Riverside, with seven graduations, landed in the “CARE ICU.”
This raises a critical question: Are the right metrics being used to evaluate success? And what does this mean for counties at risk of losing funding? Newsom promised extra support for struggling counties through the CARE Improvement and Coordination Unit, but details remain vague. Meanwhile, San Francisco, on the “CARE ICU” list, welcomes state assistance, while Orange County argues it’s not just about the number of petitions but the quality of care provided.
Newsom’s plan to redirect funds includes $131.8 million for housing and $159 million for homelessness prevention, but he hasn’t specified which programs might lose funding. This leaves us with a thought-provoking question: Is threatening to pull funding the best way to motivate counties, or could it exacerbate existing challenges? What do you think? Is Newsom’s approach fair, or is he missing the bigger picture? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
