California spends billions of dollars in homes for people with mental health problems. Will this amount come to those who need the most?


Summary

Governor Gavin Newsom wants to see tangible mental health bonus of $ 6.4 billion that the voters approved last year. The action quickly leads to the risk of neglecting communities with little resources.

Read this story in English

The Newsom administration is moving quickly to distribute thousands of dollars from the mental health bonus in 2024, approved by a narrow margin by voters, but there are concerns about whether the regions of the state that have the most need will be left behind, according to the testimony of the legislative supervision this week.

Proposal 1Powered by governor Gavin Newo, he promised to bring $ 6.4 billion to the overloaded system of addiction and treatment of the mental health of the state. NEWSOM promised the voters that the measure would help the state cope with Housing crisiswhich is often publicly associated with Mental Health problems and businessesS

The greater part of the money, $ 4,400 million, will be used to build medical facilities to help cover Expected 10,000 beds In the country. The remaining money from the bonds will be used for housing and the State Housing Department will be managed.

NEWSOM wanted to act as quickly as possible. Last year he announced that the state will free money from the bond months earlier than expectedS During a press conference last year, Newsom told Counts to act with a “sense of urgency”.

“Either you are part of the problem or you are not. Point, ”he said at that time.

But this schedule could ignore counties that have less mental health resources.

“Getting this money quickly has costs because there will be some that will remain behind,” says Susan Holt, director of the behavioral health of Freshno County, during the public on Tuesday.

Small and rural counties say that they simply have no effort or experience to meet the complex subsidy requirements that manage this unique investment of billions of dollars. A Analyzer’s Legislative Report He recently determined that the bigger part of the money allocated in programs similar to proposal 1 in the past go to regions of the state that needed it at least. The area with the most unmet need, to the south of the San Joaquin Valley, did not receive government money in previous funding rounds.

To meet the needs of the population, the region needs almost tripping its capacity.

Prior to proposal 1 Holt testified that Freshno County had filed nine subsidies, mainly for intensive beds, and did not receive money from the state.

“I can say with conviction and security that we understand the emergency,” Holt said. “Sometimes with so much money we have to go a little more slowly so that we can go faster at the end.”

Counties also worry that the state has provided money for medical facilities, but not for labor or services.

Ryan Miller, an analyst at the Legislative Analyst’s service, examined how the state spent such construction funds in the past. His analysis came to the conclusion that in historically the state has provided funds for projects “ready for its start”, which can be completed in a short period, a criterion that gives preference to the most complicated cities.

What regions have received more mental health funding?

For example, a Rand study of 2022 concluded that Los Angeles and the Sacramento metropolitan region have sufficient capacity for intensive adult treatment, but together these areas have received almost three -quarters of the funds allocated for intensive treatment, approximately $ 130 million, according to the analyst’s service. On the other hand, these areas are more in need of harmful attention and residential treatment in the community.

“Many resources and staff are needed to build an attractive project and ready to start it,” Miller said.

Other regions of the country that have received less money than those expected depending on the need are the inner empire, the central coast and the bay area, Miller said.

The Assembly Jacqui Irwin, the author of the legislation that put the proposal 1 on the ballot, said the voters were very skeptical about how the state spends their money and these promises were given to send money to the counts quickly. But the democrat of a thousand Oaks also questioned whether the accelerated schedule is reasonable.

Proposal 1 was approved For the highest margin last year, 50.2% compared to 49.8%.

“Do you think the administration of the administration was too aggressive or are the goals realistic?”

The state supports projects that believe they will be successful

Marlis Perez, Head of the Department of Medical Services, rejected the idea that the awards would leave small cities behind.

“I do not want to look like we are only paying the most paid demands,” Perez said, pointing to almost $ 200 million in subsidies that were made in small cities before proposal 1.

At the same time, the administration must support projects that can really be completed, Perez said.

According to the analyst’s service, 18 small counties have not received funds in rounds of previous subsidies. According to Perez 16 of them, they do not apply.

“Unfortunately, we can only reward those who want it. That was a challenge, “Perez said.

The service helps these counties with the application and now expects seven of them to request the following funding round. One of the most difficult subsidy requirements is that the facilities guarantee that they can provide services for the next 30 years.

Even with more than $ 3.3 billion, which will be allocated in two months, there is little space to change the fate of money. This circle of subsidies will again focus on the projects “Ready to Start”. The remaining $ 1.1 billion will be awarded in early 2026.

Applicants have submitted projects for a total of over $ 8.8 billion, twice as much as the money available, an indication of serious needs throughout the country.

The Assembly, Hoaquin Arana, a Democrat from Freen, said that when the system rewards those who historically succeeded in providing services, there is a risk of “incorporating historical inequalities and differences”.

This note was made with the support of the California Foundation for Health (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the right attention when they already need it can pay. Visit www.chcf.org for more information.

This article was originally published by CalmattersS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *