EDITORIAL: Amid new criticism of 2004 'millionaires' tax,' mental health crisis must be confronted

Jul. 12—"Mental health."

Those two words have become a catch all for many of the horrifying events we hear about almost daily.

Gun violence and random crime. Drug abuse and the chronically homeless. Mental health issues.

Collectively, we throw up our hands; it's a crisis that we're told that after every mass murder —and by gun rights supporters and by advocates trying to improve the lot of people living on the streets or by those souls desperately seeking help for drug addiction or people lost in isolation, anxiety and depression.

California voters nearly 20 years ago agreed something drastic was needed, approving a tax on millionaires that was hailed as a game changer in improving mental health services and reducing homelessness.

But an investigative piece by the Los Angeles Times published Sunday found that while the tax has generated $29 billion and improved some outreach services since Proposition 63 was approved by 54% of voters in 2004, the program and promises have fallen far short of the initial goals.

The Times report found several major, overlapping reasons why the tax hasn't made a major dent in this crisis: "chronic and systemic underfunding of other social and mental health programs, unpredictable swings in revenue, bureaucratic infighting between state and county officials and, in the last few years, a severe shortage of mental health clinicians."

With Prop. 63, which taxes incomes that are more than $1 million another 1%, expected to put an additional $3.8 billion into mental health services this fiscal year, critics say it's time California takes a hard look at how the money is being spent.

Concerns over how the mental health tax funds are being spent are not new. The Santa Cruz County grand jury in 2014 found a number of issues with Prop. 63-funded services and providers.

"Counselors and psychiatrists are not readily available for existing and potential mental health clients," the grand jury found, and their report went on to note that county Health Services Agency staff told them mental health clients at the Emeline Street facility faced long delays in obtaining psychiatric care appointments.

We doubt much has changed in the eight years after that finding.

In 2015, a state watchdog agency found state and county officials were unable to show how billions of dollars collected through the tax were being spent or whether related programs were helping people with mental illness as voters intended. A 2012 Associated Press investigation found tens of millions of dollars generated by the tax went to general wellness programs for people who had not been diagnosed with any mental illness. The state auditor reported similar findings a year later.

In 2022, county officials throughout the state told the LA Times they have done the best they can with available resources.

But, the Times found, "state and local disputes over whether counties are stockpiling cash or spending every dollar have persisted for years — often with little financial consequence" as state overseers have provided little oversight.

Amid the many years of wrangling over the tax, attention has focused on homeless encampments found in all coastal cities in California.

In the wake of increasing public concerns, Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a new program that would bring court-ordered treatment for homeless individuals with severe mental illness.

The proposal is under fire from disability advocates, who charge it would violate privacy rights by arbitrarily forcing people into treatment. It also could be partially funded with Prop, 63 revenues, as the state and Newsom say counties have unspent money, a contention most county officials vehemently dispute.

Newsom's plan, at the very least, cannot be implemented without counties demonstrating they have adequate services in place.

But this we do know: California's approach to people with severe mental illnesses isn't working.

Newsom's plan is one possible answer. But it will mean a serious effort by the state to finally make sense of that 2004 tax supposed to make a major difference in helping the mentally ill we encounter daily in our community. That accounting is long overdue.

___

(c)2022 the Santa Cruz Sentinel (Scotts Valley, Calif.)

Visit the Santa Cruz Sentinel (Scotts Valley, Calif.) at www.santacruzsentinel.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.