Sara Rubin here, reminded of the old adage: Elections have consequences. And that’s not because I am anticipating what will happen after the upcoming June 2 primary. It’s because local officials are starting down the new reality of how behavioral health services are funded at the county level, with some major changes thanks to Proposition 1.
The measure passed in 2024 by a slim margin, just 50.2 percent of the vote. (It fared better in Monterey County, where it passed with 53.4 percent of the vote.) Our editorial board endorsed the measure back in 2024, enthusiastic about the big idea framing to tackle homelessness and mental health jointly, strategically—but also aware that it would have some unpleasant consequences. “For counties,” we wrote at the time, “the measure would mean less money and also less latitude on how to spend Mental Health Services Act funds.”
That “less money and less latitude” moment is happening now, slated to take effect July 1 when the methodology underlying the Behavioral Health Services Act (formerly the Mental Health Services Act) kicks in. And that new plan has a final public hearing tomorrow, May 28, at 5:30pm in Marina.
The County Behavioral Health Commission will be tasked with adopting a plan that allocates funding for particular behavioral health interventions over three years. The whole concept originated thanks to earlier voter approval back in 2004, levying a 1-percent tax on Californians earning income of more than $1 million to fund mental health services.
In the new framework, updated by Prop. 1, more funding will go toward housing for people experiencing homelessness and substance abuse disorder programs, as Senior Staff Writer Pam Marino has reported. But the proposition doesn’t mean there’s more money to go around—it shuffles what can and cannot be funded through this process and preventative mental health initiatives are losing out.
I reported in April on the 21 local organizations that are losing a collective $6.4 million in funding because of the changes to the BHSA. That includes therapists at the nonprofit Center for Community Advocacy. That includes the Alliance on Aging’s senior peer counseling program. It includes maternal health outreach by Centro Binancional Para El Desarrollo Indígena Oaxaqueño. The list goes on.
The hearing tomorrow is not an opportunity to find funding for these groups—that ship already sailed when we approved Prop. 1 two years ago. Some organizations, like Center for Community Advocacy, are looking to private donors to help backfill funding. The Alliance on Aging is urging the Monterey County Board of Supervisors to find dollars. Some groups may have some success applying to a state pool of funds, but it’s likely to be more competitive than the old county process of getting MHSA allocations every three years.
I still think the principles underlying the proposition are good ones, and address some of the most urgent needs of people in crisis. But I worry about what will happen when there are less resources available upstream, offering culturally relevant interventions to people well before they are experiencing a crisis, and hopefully never do.