PROPOSITION 1: NEUTRAL

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM AND BOND MEASURE

(Legislative Statute)

CAIR-CA holds reservations regarding Proposition 1’s potential impact on (1) involuntary treatment centers and communities of color, (2) reallocation of county funds, and (3) narrowing of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) recipients.

1. California has made large strides in reducing investments into involuntary/forced/locked treatment options for persons with severe behavioral needs. These types of facilities are not trauma-informed, evidence-backed, and disproportionately admit people of color. By reinvesting in housing interventions which include these forms of treatment, California risks regressing into discriminatory and ineffective systems of care.
2. County funds currently finance community-based services and supports. Proposition 1 would reallocate these funds to housing interventions with an additional percentage reallocated to the state budget, thus de-centering local, community-based resources.
3. The MHSA currently serves a spectrum of behavioral health needs and Proposition 1 would shift funding towards a subset of the population with the most severe needs, thus affecting intervention and prevention services provided by the counties.

CAIR-CA supports the state’s desire to address the homelessness crisis and housing those with severe behavioral challenges but have concerns over Proposition 1’s efficiency and the long-lasting impact it may have on the remainder of the population and particularly on California’s communities of color.

SUMMARY

Proposition 1 makes a number of amendments to reallocate funds towards substance use disorders, complex behavioral health issues, and housing services for the served population into the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Please see the below sections on supporting arguments and opposing arguments for the pros and cons of Proposition 1.

Proposition 1 would:

• Amend the name of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA).
• Allocate funds to housing persons with substance use disorders and severe behavioral health issues.
• Change how county mental health plans are required to spend revenues from Proposition 63 which passed in 2004 and enacted an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million, dedicating revenues to counties to fund mental health services and programs. Under Proposition 1, 30% of the revenues would be allocated to housing intervention programs.
• Require counties to allocate their BHSA funds as follows:
  • 30% for housing interventions.
  • 35% for Full Service Partnership programs.
  • 35% for behavioral health services and supports.

Revise the allocation of state-level funds:

• At least 3% to the Department of Health Care Access and Information to implement a statewide behavioral health workforce initiative.
• At least 4% to the California Department of Public Health for population-based mental health and substance use disorder prevention programs. A minimum of 51% of these funds must be used for programs serving Californians who are 25 years or younger.
• Shift about 10% of dollars from counties to the state. This would result in about $140 million annually redirected to the state budget. However, this amount could be higher or lower depending on the total amount of revenue collected from the tax.

Fiscal Impact:
Proposition 1 does not generate new revenue; it reallocates existing revenue.

In terms of bonds, Proposition 1 would issue $6.380 billion in bonds to the Mental Health Services Act. The proceeds from the bond issue would be allocated as follows:

• $1.05 billion for permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans who have mental health or substance abuse disorders,
• $922 million to fund permanent supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and have behavioral health needs; and
• $4.393 billion for grants for behavioral health treatment and housing eligible under the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program.

Note: Prop. 1 would not change the tax on people with incomes over $1 million per year. This means counties would be expected to expand their scope of services without an increase in revenue.

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Supporting organizations: TreatmentNotTents, Governor Newsom’s ballot measure committee, is the leading campaign supporting Prop. 1. Other supporting organizations include:

• California Business Roundtable
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Hospital Association
• League of California Cities
• Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission
• National Alliance on Mental Illness California

Supporting Argument: Supporters claim that Prop. 1 would prioritize existing funds and generate new funds for Californians with the most severe behavioral health needs and those living in encampments. Other supporters assert that the proposition is a beneficial component in advancing the variety of interventions needed to address California’s housing and homelessness challenges. Supporters of Prop. 1 include California Big City Mayors as well as some behavioral health and housing advocates.

OPPOSING ORGANIZATIONS

Opposition: Californians Against Proposition 1 is the leading campaign against Prop 1. Other opposing organizations include:

• Cal Voices
• Disability Rights California
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• League of Women Voters of America
• Mental Health America of California
• ACLU

Opposing Argument: Opponents, including disability rights advocates and peer support advocates, argue that Prop. 1 represents a significant regression in the treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders, likening its impact to a 50-year setback. This perspective stems from allowing funding to be used for involuntary or forced treatment facilities. Opponents also claim that Prop. 1 could result in reduced mental health services for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color.