Prop 1 addresses mental health, addiction

State ballot measure also looks at homeless issues

Proposition 1 on the March 5 California Primary ballot asks voters to approve $6.4 billion in new bonds, with the funding earmarked for mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment and additional housing.

If approved, the proposition would not increase any taxes. The money to pay off the bond issue would come from the state General Fund, and would amount to about $310 million a year for 30 years, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s office.

About $4.4 billion of the new funding from the proposition would go toward state programs to build or fund new “supportive housing” and treatment facilities for those suffering from mental health issues and drug and alcohol addiction. It is estimated about 6,800 people would benefit from the new facilities.

Housing

In addition, $2 billion would go to the current state programs that give local governments money to turn hotels, motels and other buildings into housing units, and also build new housing. The new funding would build or buy about 4,350 housing units, it is estimated, with about half of the new housing set aside for veterans.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that the funding from Proposition 1 would not have a significant impact on reducing homelessness or providing homeless veterans with housing.

Mental health services

and counties

The proposition would change the allocation of current tax revenue generated by the Mental Health Services Act, which was approved by voters in 2004. That bill is funded by a tax on residents making more than $1 million a year. That tax raises between $2 billion and $3.5 billion a year. Currently, counties get about 95% of that funding, with the state taking 5%.

If approved, Proposition 1 would increase the amount of the tax taken by the state, reducing the

funding going directly to counties. About $140 million would be shifted from counties to the state.

If approved, the Proposition would also change how counties provide services. It would require more spending on housing and “personalized support services,” such as unemployment assistance and education. In general, counties would have less state money to provide services to those with critical mental health issues along with drug and alcohol addictions. The ballot measure would allow counties to spend money for drug and alcohol treatment for those without debilitating mental health issues.

Counties would still have discretion on how to spend state and local funds on mental health and addition services, and what programs to fund, staff and implement.

Supporters of Proposition 1 and opponents offered their take on the measure in the state’s Official Voter Information Guide.

Backers of the ballot measure claim mental health services have been underfunded since the 1970s. That has led to the current “crisis” facing the state. The proposition will shift emphasis to treatment and common-sense solutions to mental health and drug and alcohol treatment and homelessness. Thus the tagline, “Treatment not Tents.”

The funding would expand “community based services” and build “supportive housing” for those with severe mental health issues. The measure would help those with severe mental health or addiction issues get treatment, which could keep them out of local and state jails and prisons.

The measure would allocate money specifically to services for veterans, especially homeless veterans, so they can get mental health services and addiction services which could get them off the streets and into some of the housing being funded by the measure.

Proponents also said the measure would help fund additional professions and jobs in the mental health and addictions fields.

Opponents of Proposition 1 focused on the money that would moved to the state and away from counties if the measure is approved. That money move would cause “extreme damage” to existing mental health programs because less money would flow to counties for those programs.

Opponents also call out the measure’s components that have the state, not local governments, making decisions on what kind and type of mental health and homeless services should be provided. They decry the “one size fits all” approach and claim many smaller rural counties have different issues and challenges than large, urban areas.

Opponents also point out the money allocated for new housing for the homeless, even if spent effectively, will do little to combat the state’s massive homeless issues and reduce the number of homeless. The veterans’ programs would not receive enough funding to make a major reduction in the number of homeless veterans or those in need of mental health and addiction treatment.

The cost of the bonds over the 30-year repayment period is also exorbitant, opponents said, and would come in more than double the $6.4 in bond funding.