By Dr. Marv Southard
Los Angeles Dept. of Mental Health
Two-year old Brandon wasn't born when voters passed the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) in 2004. But it was young people like Brandon that State Senator Darrell Steinberg had in mind when he spearheaded the groundbreaking initiative known as Proposition 63.
On Wednesday Senator Steinberg saw firsthand how Prop. 63 has made a difference in the lives of California families when he visited Mamas con Bebes, a highly successful program for at-risk teenage mothers funded by the voter-approved initiative.
"It makes my heart happy to see Prop. 63 in action," the Senator said, as he met Brandon and his mom Camille.
Camille had family and anger issues she was unable to handle. She coped by shoplifting. She was eventually arrested. Her family kicked her out and she became homeless. As part of her rehabilitation, Camille was sent to the Mamas con Bebes program, where she learned the patience needed to effectively handle her issues and love her baby.
The same circumstances - including abuse, neglect, and financial hardship -- that lead teen moms to experience time in the juvenile justice system or foster care also put them at risk for mental health issues.
Mamas con Bebes brings together services like counseling, case management, employment, education, and housing, that help teen moms coming from the juvenile justice system or child welfare services address their own mental health and gain the stability they want for their children.
Mamas con Bebes is one of many programs funded by the MHSA that are forever changing the way people with mental health needs access services in California, putting a focus on meeting mental health needs early, rather than waiting for early signs to develop into a crisis.
Currently, 41 mothers and their babies are being served by this intensive early intervention program run by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health.
Since the program has been in operation, 95 percent of participating families have found stable housing, 61 percent of the mothers have found stable jobs or are in school, 71 percent have shown improved mother-child attachment, and there's been a 59 percent decrease in depression and anxiety among mothers.
These statistics show that Prop. 63's approach is working. But the real impact goes far beyond numbers - just ask Mom Jasmin, who says the most powerful proof of Prop. 63's success is chance its given families like hers.
"You are the reason why we're all here," Jasmin said to Senator Steinberg. "You have helped me (and other moms) bond with my child."
Proposition 63, passed by California voters in 2004, imposed a 1% tax on personal income of more than $1 million to support community mental health programs.
(Thanks for the update. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The California State Plan on Aging estimates the population of seniors, over 85 years of age, will increase 172% over the next 20 years. The most recent draft of the plan finds that "California's older adult population will increase by 90 percent as members of the Baby Boomer cohort reach 60." The Plan outlines the major areas of concern for seniors in the next four years.
EDIT By BRIAN: See the flip for more on the Plan on Aging.
In 1998 California voters approved Proposition 10, taxing tobacco sales to pay for educational and health care programs for children under age 5 whose families are otherwise unable to afford those services (the First Five program). And in 2004 voters approved Proposition 63, levying a 1% surcharge on incomes over $1 million to finally reverse decades of deliberate underfunding of mental health services. These programs have been VERY successful and both programs have stable long-term funding.
Only in the twisted logic of the May 19 special election could that be seen as a bad thing.
The early childhood and mental health programs became prime targets for budget negotiators working to solve the state's $42-billion deficit. They were sporting a budget surplus of about $2.5 billion each at a time when health and welfare programs funded the old-fashioned way -- through the state's general fund appropriations -- were being stripped.
Backers say those surpluses were a fiscal mirage, because the money had been committed to future programs or was being saved for tough times.
Let's be clear here - because Props 10 and 63 were a successful method of creating important programs and paying for them, they are now seen as viable targets for attack. The LA Times goes further and uses this as an occasion to criticize ballot box budgeting:
But the measures, Propositions 1D and 1E, also represent ballot-box budgeting coming back to haunt the California electorate.
Though they often complain that statehouse lawmakers spend like drunken sailors, the state's voters have in recent decades repeatedly performed in much the same manner. Time and again they have approved propositions that critics say have combined to straitjacket the state's budgetary process.
"The voters have been as responsible for this budget mess as anyone else," said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political science professor. "Election after election they have authorized money for this or that. And it ties the hands of the Legislature at budget time."
I don't buy this. True, I tend to reject the "ballot box budgeting is bad" argument generally speaking, but in particular it's not appropriate for this situation. Especially when voters are being asked to do more ballot box budgeting. Voters haven't "tied the legislature's hands" by things like Prop 10 or Prop 63. What they've done is say "we like social programs, we like taxing people to pay for them, and since you have proved unwilling or unable to do it, we'll do it instead."
To criticize ballot box budgeting without explaining why it happens - because Prop 13 gutted the state's ability to pay for core services and created the conservative veto through the 2/3 rule - is to miss the point almost entirely.
And it enables things like Props 1D and 1E, which seem designed to punish voters for having successfully funded important programs.
One-time program raids are not a solution to the budget mess anyway. Nothing the LA Times has included in this article does anything other than convince me a NO vote on Props 1D and 1E is the right move for our state.
The No on 1D/E Campaign, which recently merged, have released an internal poll (PDF) from Tulchin Research. The data is consistent with a previous PPIC poll. Prop 1D (First 5) is slightly ahead 48-42, and Prop 1E (Mental health) is down 44-46. More spin details from the No campaign:
* A solid majority of voters describe the measures as "deceptive" (56%).
* Nearly half of the voters are concerned they will "cut funding for children and the mentally ill" (45%).
* There are nearly twice as many voters who strongly oppose Props 1D & 1E.
* The voters most likely to cast a ballot are more likely to vote NO than less likely voters.
* "Definite" voters reject Proposition 1E (42% Yes - 48% NO).
* "Definite" voters split their opinion on Proposition 1D (46% Yes - 45% NO).
* Nearly 1 in 5 voters (18%) believe that Props 1D & 1E hurt programs and services, particularly for children and the mentally ill.
* 16% of voters describe the initiatives as "deceptive" or "dishonest."
Either way, being below 50% at this point is just a really bad position. It is possible to make up some grouund with a ton of money, but the yes campaign will be swimming upstream from the general drift towards no. In a low-turnout special election, that drift is likely to be more visible.
All I'm saying is that if I were on the "Budget Reform Now" campaign, I'd be getting pretty nervous right now.
The New York Times continues its coverage on shantytowns today, highlighting a Bushville in Fresno that has suddenly popped up. First of all, given that Los Angeles County has 70,000 homeless people and that number has remained durable for quite some time, I welcome the national media to the issue about the homeless but don't necessarily think that because this new class puts up tents (they do the same on LA's Skid Row, BTW) that somehow it's novel. The recession clearly has exacerbated this problem and brought it to new areas in the state and the country, but that doesn't mean homelessness didn't exist before.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that he has teamed up with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson to help the homeless and has lobbied the president to speed the flow of federal dollars to address the problem [...]
U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, in February announced that the city and county of Sacramento each are in line to receive $2.4 million in stimulus money to prevent homelessness.
The money will be managed by the city-county Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.
In addition, Proposition 63, the ballot measure voters approved in 2004 to provide mental health funding, will provide "a lot of help" for some of those living on the streets, the governor said.
That would be Prop. 63, the fund which the Governor and the legislature are trying to RAID through Prop. 1E, to the tune of $230 million a year diverted to other purposes. You can debate the pluses and minuses of that, but promising Prop. 63 funds to fight homelessness at the same time as running a campaign to take Prop. 63 funds away is either cruel or clueless.
So-called Pres. George W. Bush initiated a war of aggression and limitless occupation against the sovereign nation of Iraq in order to exact revenge on Sadaam Hussein over Hussein's assassination attempt on former Pres. George H.W. Bush and to secure Iraqi oil for Bush's Texas oil cronies. Sen. John McCain and Rep. Mary Bono Baxely Mack, absentee Congresswoman, have supported every Bush war policy without reservation. In fact, McCain is prepared for the U.S. to continue the occupation of Iraq 'for 100 years.'
The U.S. Army recently released a study on the impact of the Bush war of aggression on the mental health of U.S. troops (The Associated Press, by Pauline Jelinek, dated March 7, 2008). The findings of the report are devastating to the Bush occupation efforts and reveal the harmful impact on a significant percentage of U.S. troops.
You may remember that in August, Gov. Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto pen to cancel $55 million in funding for the treatment and care of mentally ill homeless people.
If you don't remember it, shame on you. It should be the only thing you think of when you think of this governor. He should be forever known as the "Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator."
The claim was that Prop. 63, passed by the voters, adequately funded this need, and so the dedicated funding that passed the legislature as AB 2034 could be eliminated. That's not true. What was actually going on was that the governor was trying to limit political damage by cutting funding for people who don't vote and therefore aren't of his concern.
Advocates for the mentally ill filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger subverted the will of voters when he eliminated a $55-million program for the homeless mentally ill -- a program he himself had touted as a success.
The suit asks a judge to restore the eliminated funding, order the state to continue paying for the program and declare that the governor acted illegally -- an important provision, the advocates said, in establishing precedent for future disputes over mental health system funding.
The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, chosen because the plaintiffs include several mentally ill people in the county who credit the program with improving their lives -- helping them kick a drug habit, for instance, or move from the streets into their own apartment.
Allow me to file an amicus brief:
The Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator is a callous, small man.
Today's column in the LA Times takes the Governor to task for his unconscionable cut of homeless services that were working and saving money, in favor of a tax loophole for Dick Ackerman's yachting pals. Lopez has spent lots of time on the streets of Skid Row, and gotten to know the homeless people that struggle to survive down there. One of them, Bill Compton, died Monday, and it's grimly ironic that this happened at the same time that the program inspired by his successful move off the streets had its funding cut.
Bill Compton's Project Return helped pave the way for AB 2034, which, until its funding was cut by Schwarzenegger last week, was keeping nearly 5,000 people off the streets of California with a smart mix of housing and all the necessary support services.
The governor's staff has argued that the program can be funded with other revenues, such as money from the voter-approved Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63). But state Sen. Darrell Steinberg, who introduced AB 2034 when he was in the Assembly, said the latter ploy is both illegal and a subversion of voter intent.
"I was sick to my stomach for two days," said Steinberg, who believed until last week that the governor would be on his side, particularly since the program has substantially reduced hospitalization, incarceration and criminal justice costs for its participants.
(Here's a Word doc of the Certificate. You can fax a PDF with a free trial at fax1.com.
Apparently fax1.com requires a non-free email service. If you want to send a free fax and you only have Yahoo! Mail or Gmail, use Fax Zero. - promoted by David Dayen)
This will be faxed to Sen. Ackerman's office today:
CERTIFICATE OF MERIT
The National Coalition of Yacht Owners Who Hate The Homeless (NCYOWHTH) proudly bestows this award upon State Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman (R-Irvine), who has the courage and foresight to be a yachting enthusiast and not a mentally ill homeless person, and is therefore eligible for a major tax break instead of having his social services eliminated. As an organization of yachters who will also benefit from the same tax cut to the tune of $45 million dollars, coincidentally almost the same amount that would fund the rehabilitation program for mentally ill homeless people, we applaud this setting of the real priorities for our state. Sen. Ackerman has been a leader in the twin fields of yachting and not being homeless for many years, and we are pleased to award this certificate today. We ask you to be the keynote speaker at The National Coalition of Yacht Owners Who Hate The Homeless clam bake in Tustin later this year. After all, there wouldn't be an organization this strong without you.
Sincerely,
David Dayen
Executive Director, The National Coalition of Yacht Owners Who Hate The Homeless
You can send this too:
Capitol Office fax: (916) 445-9754
District Office fax: (714) 573-1859
Here's some trivia about State Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman which may shed some light on the late round of budget cuts for social services. No, Ackerman's not a mentally ill homeless person, but he is a yacht owner.
Several lawmakers at the center of the budget dispute did not return phone calls or could not be reached. They included Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine -- a yacht owner who pushed to ease the tax burden on owners of yachts, planes and RVs.
An Ackerman spokesman said the senator was unavailable.
Here's a little more on this supposedly unnecessary mental health program, cleaved for the benefit of yachting aficianados everywhere:
It has served 13,000 people since November 1999. There are about 4,700 participants today. Among those enrolled as of January, there were 81% fewer days of incarceration, 65% fewer days of psychiatric hospitalization and 76% fewer days of homelessness compared with their pre-enrollment days.
Rusty Selix, executive director of the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies -- like Steinberg, a Proposition 63 coauthor -- said the cost of incarceration can be six times higher than the cost of enrolling someone in the mental health program.
"Rehabilitation costs money. But it's worth it," said Adrienne Sheff, director of adult services at the San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center in Van Nuys. Los Angeles County receives nearly a third of the state funds through AB 2034 and serves 1,700 people.
This program was designed to lessen the cost of those homeless who eat up emergency services - like the guy who showed up at San Diego ERs 87 times in a calendar year. Ultimately this move, done purely to satisfy short-sighted bean-counters, will end up costing the state far more. But that burden will be placed on municipalities and local governments, not the state coffers. Making the bean-counters - and yacht owners like Dick Ackerman - very, very happy.
OK, time for a little role-play. You're the post-partisan governor of a large state. The state budget comes into your hands with cuts almost to the bone, but you promised an additional $700 million and just don't know what to do. Who's going to get the shaft?
The Governor used his line item veto to cut the entire funding nearly $55 million for the AB 2034 housing program that serves over 4,700 adults with severe mental health needs, all of whom were homeless and frequently hospitalized or incarcerated before getting into the program. The Governor said in his veto message deleting the funding that:
"...while I support the goals of the program, this reduction is necessary to limit program expansions and to help bring ongoing expenditures in line with existing resources. To the extent counties find this program beneficial and cost-effective, it can be restructured to meet the needs of each county's homeless population using other county funding sources, such as federal funds, realignment funds, or Proposition 63 funds. I am reducing Schedule (6) to eliminate the $12,000,000 legislative augmentation for the 5 percent rate restoration for mental health managed care. This technical veto is consistent with the legislative action taken in [Budget] Item 4440-103-0001."
Mental health advocates say that the immediate effect of the funding cut by the Governor could result in thousands of those people in the program being forced back on the streets at risk of hospitalization and incarceration... The actual outcome of these programs depend on response of local mental health agencies and the Department of Mental Health - but advocates say the cut seeks to supplant funding from the landmark Proposition 63 Mental Health Services Act - funding that was meant they say only for new community based programs - and specifically not meant to fund existing programs.
This is a bait and switch we've seen before by budgetary bean counters. Dedicated funding that's supposed to go ON TOP of budget outlays ends up being the only funding source. So the will of the voters is completely overturned; instead of supplementary mental health funding, Prop. 63 becomes the sole funding.
There were some other cuts, including $6.3 million that would have gone toward the California Discount Prescription Drug Program. But the mentally ill homeless cuts were the most drastic. And it once again shows that those with the softest voice end up getting hit the hardest.
You would think that a governor would try to step in on July 16 when a budget is due July 1. And you would think he would be doing everything he can to manage the prison crisis given the rapidly approaching deadline when judges may cap the number of inmates. But you're just not post-partisan (or lazy as hell, you choose).
last week closed with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attention thousands of miles east as he ventured to Florida for a turn before the cameras and a $25,000-per-table Republican party fundraiser.
To Capitol insiders, the trip was the latest troubling evidence that despite the many big issues before him, the governor's interest in the nuts and bolts of governing has ebbed. Splashy announcements remain his trademark, but after the cameras pack up, Schwarzenegger has often not followed through. As a result, key parts of his agenda are foundering.
I think my biggest problem with those paragraphs is the word "ebbed." When was he EVER interested in governing? Sure, he likes magazine covers, and getting to wear anything with the California state seal on it, but actually GOVERNING. Not his style.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and his cronies claim to have solved the state prison crisis, but that is very far from the truth. Sure, we are spending billions of dollars on building new prisons. (All the better to incarcerate 1% of our population) However, we still can't seem to find the cash to actually treat the mentally ill in our prison system. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ordered pay hikes to all mental health professionals at our state prison system to help ease the staffing shortage in the department:
The federal judge overseeing reforms in mental healthcare for California prisoners has ordered the Department of Mental Health to significantly raise salaries of all clinicians at state mental hospitals who treat the sick prisoners.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton had indicated at a Sacramento hearing Monday that he might require pay raises only for psychiatrists. But his written order, released late Wednesday, is far more sweeping - applying also to psychologists, licensed clinical social workers and the psychiatric technicians on the front lines of day-to-day care. Still, it remained far from clear Thursday when or how the raises would be implemented and whether the majority of hospital workers would even receive them.
The move came after Karlton's December order to sharply raise pay for prison clinicians inadvertently helped trigger an exodus of staff from the state hospitals - which treat some of the same prisoners whom Karlton's court aims to protect. {LAT 5/25/07)
So, the raise at the prison system just made it clear that we heavily underpay our mental health professionals at the state hospitals. I know nobody really wants to go back to the halcyon days of behemoth state hospitals and the high rates of institutionalization, but there needs to be some balance. Clearly our homelessness rates have been affected by the massive cuts to mental health care, and this in turn leads to additional prisoners. We keep treating the symptoms and ignoring the disease. So, let's build more prisons, that'll do it. That's way more practical than addressing the underlying root causes. Because my mama always said, "A pound of ineffective ameliorative care is worth jack squat." Oh, hmm, is that how that goes?
This is a must-read piece by Steve Lopez today on the makeup of our state's prison population.
In the ongoing flap over prison overcrowding in California and what to do about it, little consideration has been given to inmates such as Stephan Lilly.
I wrote about the Los Angeles man late last year, when his conviction on charges stemming from a scuffle with a security guard were counted as a third strike. Despite a years-long battle with schizophrenia, and the fact that one of the three strikes was a threat that involved no physical contact, Lilly got 25 to life.
California's prisons are jammed with thousands of mentally ill inmates who didn't get help before their incarceration and aren't likely to get much while locked up. Not only is that like a chapter out of the Dark Ages, but the high rate of repeat crimes among parolees is costing taxpayers a fortune.
Hear, hear. Why are we sending people who need medical treatment to rot in jail? Why are these mentally ill people, who make up 1 out of every 5 inmates, given little or no treatment while incarcerated?
Fortunately, Sen. Darrell Steinberg wants to do something about it.
Well come on down, because the Department of Mental Health is desperate for a few good professionals. The state built a fancy, state-of-the-art mental health hospital, but they forgot one thing...where are they going to get staff? You see, this brand-spanking new hospital is in Coalinga. Coalinga you ask? Yes, it's in Fresno County, about 70 miles outside of the city of Fresno and right smack dab between SF and LA. Approximatel 3.5 hours from both, and a couple hours from Bakersfield. It seems, for some reason, mental health professionals aren't flocking to come live in Coalinga.
Jackie Speier, one of my favorite state senators (perhaps b/c she is my senator...), wasn't so impressed with the planning on this one:
"Talk about wasteful spending," said Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, who is closely involved in overseeing prison issues. She called the hospital a fiasco that, in her view, is a perfect symbol of the state's poor planning and poor use of resources. "It is just irresponsible not to use this facility," Speier said.(SF Chron 9/18/06)
You know, I understand the temptation to put these facilities out in the middle of the Central Valley. But you have to consider staffing it! As Rob Cordry would say, "I mean Come On!". Sacramento Geniuses...right Arnold?
This will be faxed to Sen. Ackerman's office today: