Californians are in urgent need of $6.38 billion to address the pressing issue of behavioral health housing and thus, vote yes on Proposition 1. This funding is essential for establishing housing at different levels of care, focused on individuals with severe mental illnesses and substance use disorders. The overarching goal is to establish a comprehensive behavioral health system that encompasses necessary housing solutions tailored to the levels of care needed by those suffering from these devastating conditions.
Homelessness, mental illness, substance use disorders, and incarceration are, unfortunately, deeply connected. The scarcity of behavioral health housing is evidenced by the escalating number of individuals with mental health needs within California county jails, which surged from 20 percent of the population in January 2010 to a staggering 53 percent by June 2023 (about 19,000 incarcerated people) ( Public Policy Institute of California Blog Post, 10/25/23). Proposition 1 prioritizes different levels of treatment, services, and housing over punishment for individuals debilitated by serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders. Moreover, this proposition aligns with advancing comprehensive behavioral healthcare solutions.
It is imperative to recognize the severity of mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorders, which can manifest as significantly debilitating illnesses requiring medication for symptom management. Analogous to the necessity of medical care for conditions like cancer or diabetes, these severe mental health conditions demand different levels of treatment, services, and housing to lead stable, predictable lives and restore wellbeing.
Individuals grappling with psychosis experience profound cognitive and psychiatric limitations, including hallucinations, delusions, and impaired cognitive function. Moreover, many exhibit anosognosia, wherein they lack insight into their condition, further complicating their ability to seek help and engage in treatment and services.
Regrettably, opponents of this proposition fail to acknowledge the critical need for high-level care, dismissing inpatient hospitalization and crisis residential treatment beds as coercive measures. They overlook the significantly debilitating nature of severe mental illnesses and the levels of treatment, services, and housing required for effective recovery. By perpetuating stigma and advocating for an unrestricted right to self-determination, they undermine efforts to provide individuals with the necessary levels of care and housing for recovery and restoring wellbeing.
Furthermore, opponents overlook the legal framework surrounding civil commitment, which is designed to safeguard individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, or are gravely disabled, due to their severe mental illnesses. The trauma of homelessness or incarceration, particularly in solitary confinement, exacerbates psychiatric symptoms and underscores the need for comprehensive mental health and substance use treatment, services, and housing at different levels of care to restore wellbeing.
In addressing the funding debate surrounding Proposition 1, opponents must acknowledge the reality of treating severe mental health illnesses and substance use disorders and the level of care and housing necessary to do so effectively. Rather than exacerbating stigma, we must work towards fostering understanding and compassion for individuals grappling with these devastating illnesses and the necessary levels of housing and care for restoring wellbeing.
By Dr. Margaret Fine, JD, PhD
El Cerrito, CA
2 comments
This letter seems to assume that opponents of Prop 1 regard mental health treatment and “behaviorial health housing” as unnecessary or at least a low priority. I don’t think that is so.
However, many of us do question whether Prop 1 is an appropriate vehicle and whether it will be effective. It proposes to throw $6 BILLION of borrowed money – for which taxpayers will foot the bill – at the problem. We’ve heard this song before from the progressive left and the money winds up doing very little good except for feeding what is now a major “homeless industry” of questionable nonprofits and “community-based organizations.” Spending should be more focused and have greater controls. The proponents’ sales pitch leaves me unconvinced.
Vote no
Comments are closed.