Let Your Voice Be Heard
A "NO" vote on Prop 1E means a vote of confidence towards helping those who need it the most.
http://www.noprop1e.com/
http://www.noprop1e.com/
No on Prop 1E
Don’t Cut Mental Health Care!
The Legislature’s budget deal requires voters
to consider several different ballot measures
at the May 19 special election. One that
deserves a “no” vote is Proposition 1E.
Proposition 1E changes Proposition 63, a
voter initiative passed in November 2004.
Prop. 63 added a 1% tax surcharge to annual
income over $1 million, and required all
proceeds to go to new and expanded mental
health programs for children and adults.
Prop. 63 is working. Over 200,000 people are
now enrolled in mental health services who
were not receiving treatment before 2004.
But Prop. 1E cuts a half-billion dollars from
Prop. 63 programs. These cuts will cause
immediate and lasting damage.
Prop. 1E will limit treatments and services
for people living with mental illness. Future
services are at even greater risk.
Vote NO on Prop. 1E Because:
• IT’S UNNECESSARY. Legislators have already raised taxes and cut services. The money Prop. 1E takes from Prop. 63 amounts to less than 00.25% of the state budget.
• IT CUTS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. Prop. 63 programs now help 200,000
people, including 50,000 children, who had no mental health services before it passed.
But Prop. 1E foolishly cuts these programs by hundreds of millions of dollars.
• IT COSTS US MORE. The costs of untreated mental illness are higher across the board.
People who never get care, or who lose their care, will drop out of school, lose their
jobs and homes, and cost us more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice.
• THE FIRST CUT IS A BAD PRECEDENT. Prop. 1E began as a budget proposal from
some state legislators to permanently redirect all Prop. 63 funds away from voterapproved
mental health programs. The proposal was watered down to a 2-year raid –
this time. If voters approve it, legislators will surely come back for more next time.
• IT JEOPARDIZES FEDERAL FUNDS. Prop. 1E could threaten millions of dollars in
federal assistance that now helps pay for mental health services.
• 1E HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPENDING. Unlike Prop. 63, which has strict
audits and accountability requirements, Prop. 1E puts hundreds of millions of dollars
into the General Fund, where the Legislature can spend it without restrictions.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NO ON PROP. 1E
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Don’t Cut Mental Health Care!
No on Prop. 1E, sponsored by Mental Health Organizations • FPPC ID# 1316221
1127 11th St., #925 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 557-1166 • fax: (916) 447-2350 • www.NoProp1E.com
Contribution Form
We need your help to win on May 19! Please be as generous as possible!
[ ] YES! I/we want to help defeat Prop. 1E, which cuts almost $500 million from Mental
Health Services Act programs.
Enclosed is: [ ] $1,000 [ ] $500 [ ] $250 [ ] $100 [ ] $50 [ ] Other $__________
PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
No on Prop. 1E
Please note that contributions to No on Prop. 1E are not deductible as charitable contributions
for federal income tax purposes. There is no limit on contributions. We can accept
contributions from individuals, businesses, unions and nonprofit organizations.
The law requires this committee to have contributor name, street address (other than a P.O.
Box) and occupation and employer information on file. We must return contributions if we do
not obtain this information.
NAME
STREET ADDRESS (no P.O. Boxes)
CITY, STATE, ZIP
OCCUPATION (required by law)
EMPLOYER (required by law – if self-employed, provide name of business)
/ / 2009 $
DATE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT
( ) ( )
HOME PHONE WORK / MOBILE PHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
The Legislature’s budget deal requires voters
to consider several different ballot measures
at the May 19 special election. One that
deserves a “no” vote is Proposition 1E.
Proposition 1E changes Proposition 63, a
voter initiative passed in November 2004.
Prop. 63 added a 1% tax surcharge to annual
income over $1 million, and required all
proceeds to go to new and expanded mental
health programs for children and adults.
Prop. 63 is working. Over 200,000 people are
now enrolled in mental health services who
were not receiving treatment before 2004.
But Prop. 1E cuts a half-billion dollars from
Prop. 63 programs. These cuts will cause
immediate and lasting damage.
Prop. 1E will limit treatments and services
for people living with mental illness. Future
services are at even greater risk.
Vote NO on Prop. 1E Because:
• IT’S UNNECESSARY. Legislators have already raised taxes and cut services. The money Prop. 1E takes from Prop. 63 amounts to less than 00.25% of the state budget.
• IT CUTS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT. Prop. 63 programs now help 200,000
people, including 50,000 children, who had no mental health services before it passed.
But Prop. 1E foolishly cuts these programs by hundreds of millions of dollars.
• IT COSTS US MORE. The costs of untreated mental illness are higher across the board.
People who never get care, or who lose their care, will drop out of school, lose their
jobs and homes, and cost us more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice.
• THE FIRST CUT IS A BAD PRECEDENT. Prop. 1E began as a budget proposal from
some state legislators to permanently redirect all Prop. 63 funds away from voterapproved
mental health programs. The proposal was watered down to a 2-year raid –
this time. If voters approve it, legislators will surely come back for more next time.
• IT JEOPARDIZES FEDERAL FUNDS. Prop. 1E could threaten millions of dollars in
federal assistance that now helps pay for mental health services.
• 1E HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SPENDING. Unlike Prop. 63, which has strict
audits and accountability requirements, Prop. 1E puts hundreds of millions of dollars
into the General Fund, where the Legislature can spend it without restrictions.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NO ON PROP. 1E
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Don’t Cut Mental Health Care!
No on Prop. 1E, sponsored by Mental Health Organizations • FPPC ID# 1316221
1127 11th St., #925 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 557-1166 • fax: (916) 447-2350 • www.NoProp1E.com
Contribution Form
We need your help to win on May 19! Please be as generous as possible!
[ ] YES! I/we want to help defeat Prop. 1E, which cuts almost $500 million from Mental
Health Services Act programs.
Enclosed is: [ ] $1,000 [ ] $500 [ ] $250 [ ] $100 [ ] $50 [ ] Other $__________
PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
No on Prop. 1E
Please note that contributions to No on Prop. 1E are not deductible as charitable contributions
for federal income tax purposes. There is no limit on contributions. We can accept
contributions from individuals, businesses, unions and nonprofit organizations.
The law requires this committee to have contributor name, street address (other than a P.O.
Box) and occupation and employer information on file. We must return contributions if we do
not obtain this information.
NAME
STREET ADDRESS (no P.O. Boxes)
CITY, STATE, ZIP
OCCUPATION (required by law)
EMPLOYER (required by law – if self-employed, provide name of business)
/ / 2009 $
DATE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT
( ) ( )
HOME PHONE WORK / MOBILE PHONE
EMAIL ADDRESS
Participating in the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)
NAMI California is establishing an “Expert Pool” to help us make sure that our NAMI voice is expressed and reflected in MHSA policies and programs as they are developed. Family Members & Consumers Wanted!
http://www.namicalifornia.org/document-detail.aspx?page=homepage&tabb=hometabb&part=mhsaupdates&lang=ENG&idno=1335
http://www.namicalifornia.org/document-detail.aspx?page=homepage&tabb=hometabb&part=mhsaupdates&lang=ENG&idno=1335
Institute for Global Health, University of California Berkley and UCSF Assessment of Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63)
http://www.hpm.org/en/Surveys/IGH/07/Mental_Health_Services_Act_(Proposition_63).html;jsessionid=F47BAE21F4FF6F727677087E6CF6C879?content_id=251&sortBy=sortCountry&sortOrder=sortAsc&lastSortOrder=sortAsc&language=en&pageOffset=63&lastSortBy=sortCountry
http://www.hpm.org/en/Surveys/IGH/07/Mental_Health_Services_Act_(Proposition_63).html;jsessionid=F47BAE21F4FF6F727677087E6CF6C879?content_id=251&sortBy=sortCountry&sortOrder=sortAsc&lastSortOrder=sortAsc&language=en&pageOffset=63&lastSortBy=sortCountry
National Alliance on Mental Illness
FY 2009 Spending Levels for Mental Illness Research Services and Housing. Tell your senators to support FY 2009 Budget
http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=12790306&PROCESS=Take+Action
http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=12790306&PROCESS=Take+Action
Orange County Network of Care
For anyone interested in mental health issues
http://orange.networkofcare.org/mh/home/index.cfm
http://orange.networkofcare.org/mh/home/index.cfm
Helpful Advocacy Websites for MHSA
California Department of Mental Health http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Prop_63/MHSA/default.asp
California Mental Health Director's Association
http://cmhda.org/go/MentalHealthServicesAct.aspx
Find your California representatives by zipcode
http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/govinfo/state/
California Mental Health Director's Association
http://cmhda.org/go/MentalHealthServicesAct.aspx
Find your California representatives by zipcode
http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/govinfo/state/
MHSA update
1) Shrinkage of MHSA dollars - Ventura County Star reporter Kathleen Wilson wrote in January that MHSA monies are in danger of shrinking. She reports that while initially California’s tax on millionaires for care of the mentally ill has brought twice as much money as expected it is headed for a fall with the plunge in the stock market per state finance officials.Before voters passed Proposition 63 in 2004, analysts estimated the tax on California’s wealthiest residents would yield $750 million annually. But the 1 percent tax on personal income above $1 million produced a windfall of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion a year.Now with the market wiping out investment gains, the Department of Finance is projecting the pot will drop to $981 million this fiscal year and to $887 million next year.
2) Redirection of MHSA dollars - As is noted above , the budget as it is now passed and signed, will “redirect” $226 million in Prop 63 funds for 2009-10 and up to $234 million for 2010-11 to assisting the state in paying for EPSDT services. The measure diverting Prop 63/MHSA funds is SB3x-10 and the measure calling for the special election is AB3x-11.
The measure simply redirects this amount of funds on July 1 , 2009 and on July 1 , 2010. It is silent on what part of Prop 63/MHSA funds this comes from and most likely that will not be decided until after the election – should the voters approve this measure now known as Proposition 1E.
2) Redirection of MHSA dollars - As is noted above , the budget as it is now passed and signed, will “redirect” $226 million in Prop 63 funds for 2009-10 and up to $234 million for 2010-11 to assisting the state in paying for EPSDT services. The measure diverting Prop 63/MHSA funds is SB3x-10 and the measure calling for the special election is AB3x-11.
The measure simply redirects this amount of funds on July 1 , 2009 and on July 1 , 2010. It is silent on what part of Prop 63/MHSA funds this comes from and most likely that will not be decided until after the election – should the voters approve this measure now known as Proposition 1E.
Stronger Effort Needed To Prevent Mental, Emotional, And Behavioral Disorders In Young People, Experts Urge
ScienceDaily (Feb. 13, 2009) — The federal government should make preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders and promoting mental health in young people a national priority, says a new report from the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine.
These disorders -- which include depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and substance abuse -- are about as common as fractured limbs in children and adolescents. Collectively, they take a tremendous toll on the well-being of young people and their families, costing the U.S. an estimated $247 billion annually, the report says.
Research has shown that a number of programs are effective at preventing these problems and promoting mental health, the report says. Such programs could be implemented more broadly, but currently there is no clear federal presence to lead these efforts. The White House should create an entity that can coordinate agency initiatives in this area, set public goals for prevention, and provide needed research and funding to achieve them, said the committee that wrote the report.
"There is a substantial gap between what is known about preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders and what is actually being done," said Kenneth E. Warner, committee chair and dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. "It is no longer accurate to argue that these disorders can never be prevented. Many can. The nation is well-positioned to equip young people with the skills and habits needed to live healthy, happy, and productive lives in caring relationships. But we need to develop the systems to deliver effective prevention programs to a far wider group of children and adolescents."
Most mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders have their roots in childhood and adolescence, the report notes. Among adults who have experienced these disorders, more than half report the onset as occurring in childhood or early adolescence. In any given year, an estimated 14 percent to 20 percent of young people have one of these disorders.
First symptoms typically occur two to four years before the onset of a full-blown disorder – creating a window of opportunity when preventive programs might make a difference, the report says. And some programs have shown effectiveness at preventing specific disorders in at-risk groups. For example, the Clarke Cognitive-Behavioral Prevention Intervention, which focuses on helping adolescents at risk for depression learn to cope with stress, has prevented episodes of major depression in several controlled experiments.
Other programs have demonstrated broader preventive effects in general populations of young people, the report says. Programs that can be offered in family or educational settings show particular promise in promoting mental health and addressing major risk factors.
One example of an effective school-based program is the Good Behavior Game, which divides elementary school classes into teams and reinforces desirable behaviors with rewards such as extra free time and other privileges. Studies have shown that the program significantly reduces aggressive and disruptive behavior during first grade. The one-year intervention also has benefits over the long term, lowering the students' risk of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts. And it significantly reduces the likelihood that highly aggressive boys will be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder as adults. Research has shown that programs that focus on enhancing social and emotional skills can also improve students' academic performance, the report notes.
Still other programs improve children's mental health and behavior by enhancing parenting skills, the report says. The Positive Parenting Program, for example, uses a range of approaches, from a television series on how to handle common child-rearing problems to in-person skills training for parents struggling to handle children's aggressiveness or lack of cooperation. These methods have been shown to lower kids' disruptive behaviors, a positive change that persisted one year later.
The report recommends that the White House create an entity to lead a broad implementation of evidence-based prevention approaches and to direct research on interventions. The new leadership body should set public goals for preventing specific disorders and promoting mental health and provide the funding to achieve them. The departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services should align their resources and programs with this strategy. These agencies should also fund state, county, and community efforts to implement and improve evidence-based programs. At the same time, the report cautions, federal and state agencies should not support programs that lack empirical evidence, even if they have community endorsement.
The committee also urged continued research to build understanding of what interventions work for whom and when, and how best to implement them. The National Institutes of Health should develop a comprehensive 10-year plan to research ways to promote mental health and prevent mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders in young people. In addition, agencies and foundations should establish equality in research funding between ways to prevent mental and behavioral disorders and ways to treat these problems, the report says; currently, the balance is weighted toward research on treatment.
The report also discusses screening programs that attempt to identify children with risk factors for mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders. Screening can be helpful for targeting interventions, but it should be used only if it meets certain criteria, including that the disorders to be prevented are a serious threat to mental health and that there is an effective intervention to address the risks or early symptoms. Parents should be given detailed information about the purpose and methods of screening, and the wishes of those who don't want their children included should be respected. Without community acceptance and sufficient capacity to respond to the needs identified, screening is of limited value, the committee noted. It added that approaches to connecting screening with specific interventions need to be tested.
The report was sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter.
These disorders -- which include depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and substance abuse -- are about as common as fractured limbs in children and adolescents. Collectively, they take a tremendous toll on the well-being of young people and their families, costing the U.S. an estimated $247 billion annually, the report says.
Research has shown that a number of programs are effective at preventing these problems and promoting mental health, the report says. Such programs could be implemented more broadly, but currently there is no clear federal presence to lead these efforts. The White House should create an entity that can coordinate agency initiatives in this area, set public goals for prevention, and provide needed research and funding to achieve them, said the committee that wrote the report.
"There is a substantial gap between what is known about preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders and what is actually being done," said Kenneth E. Warner, committee chair and dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. "It is no longer accurate to argue that these disorders can never be prevented. Many can. The nation is well-positioned to equip young people with the skills and habits needed to live healthy, happy, and productive lives in caring relationships. But we need to develop the systems to deliver effective prevention programs to a far wider group of children and adolescents."
Most mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders have their roots in childhood and adolescence, the report notes. Among adults who have experienced these disorders, more than half report the onset as occurring in childhood or early adolescence. In any given year, an estimated 14 percent to 20 percent of young people have one of these disorders.
First symptoms typically occur two to four years before the onset of a full-blown disorder – creating a window of opportunity when preventive programs might make a difference, the report says. And some programs have shown effectiveness at preventing specific disorders in at-risk groups. For example, the Clarke Cognitive-Behavioral Prevention Intervention, which focuses on helping adolescents at risk for depression learn to cope with stress, has prevented episodes of major depression in several controlled experiments.
Other programs have demonstrated broader preventive effects in general populations of young people, the report says. Programs that can be offered in family or educational settings show particular promise in promoting mental health and addressing major risk factors.
One example of an effective school-based program is the Good Behavior Game, which divides elementary school classes into teams and reinforces desirable behaviors with rewards such as extra free time and other privileges. Studies have shown that the program significantly reduces aggressive and disruptive behavior during first grade. The one-year intervention also has benefits over the long term, lowering the students' risk of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts. And it significantly reduces the likelihood that highly aggressive boys will be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder as adults. Research has shown that programs that focus on enhancing social and emotional skills can also improve students' academic performance, the report notes.
Still other programs improve children's mental health and behavior by enhancing parenting skills, the report says. The Positive Parenting Program, for example, uses a range of approaches, from a television series on how to handle common child-rearing problems to in-person skills training for parents struggling to handle children's aggressiveness or lack of cooperation. These methods have been shown to lower kids' disruptive behaviors, a positive change that persisted one year later.
The report recommends that the White House create an entity to lead a broad implementation of evidence-based prevention approaches and to direct research on interventions. The new leadership body should set public goals for preventing specific disorders and promoting mental health and provide the funding to achieve them. The departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services should align their resources and programs with this strategy. These agencies should also fund state, county, and community efforts to implement and improve evidence-based programs. At the same time, the report cautions, federal and state agencies should not support programs that lack empirical evidence, even if they have community endorsement.
The committee also urged continued research to build understanding of what interventions work for whom and when, and how best to implement them. The National Institutes of Health should develop a comprehensive 10-year plan to research ways to promote mental health and prevent mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders in young people. In addition, agencies and foundations should establish equality in research funding between ways to prevent mental and behavioral disorders and ways to treat these problems, the report says; currently, the balance is weighted toward research on treatment.
The report also discusses screening programs that attempt to identify children with risk factors for mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders. Screening can be helpful for targeting interventions, but it should be used only if it meets certain criteria, including that the disorders to be prevented are a serious threat to mental health and that there is an effective intervention to address the risks or early symptoms. Parents should be given detailed information about the purpose and methods of screening, and the wishes of those who don't want their children included should be respected. Without community acceptance and sufficient capacity to respond to the needs identified, screening is of limited value, the committee noted. It added that approaches to connecting screening with specific interventions need to be tested.
The report was sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter.
Take Action
SAMPLE ADVOCACY LETTER
January 27, 2009
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, GovernorThe Honorable Karen Bass, Assembly SpeakerThe Honorable Darrell Steinberg, Senate President pro TemporeThe Honorable Senator ______________
The Honorable Assembly Member ______________
Dear Governor, Legislative leaders and local elected representatives:
(Insert I or Name of Organization/Association am/are) writing today on behalf of the more than 600,000 Californians served by the State’s public mental health system and the many more who desperately need and deserve services, we are writing to communicate our strong opposition to the Governor’s proposal to unravel the voter-approved Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The Governor’s FY 2009-10 budget proposal amounts to a shameful attack on people living with mental illness who literally have no other option for services and shelter. It also represents a dramatic attempt to undermine the voters’ clear call for additional services to help thousands more people living with mental illness access recovery and support in their own communities.
Despite the Administration’s characterization of his proposal to redirect $226.7 million in MHSA funding to reduce the State’s obligations to the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation Program as “one-time only,” the Governor’s FY 2009-10 proposal would completely and permanently eliminate General Fund support for this program. The fiscal and operational consequences of this proposal would be catastrophic to counties and the clients they serve. What’s more, the Governor’s call for a ballot initiative to reverse critical provisions of Proposition 63 would permanently lock California into the inadequate mental health financing system which existed before the landmark measure’s approval by voters.
If approved, the Governor’s proposal to redirect MHSA funds and reverse critical provisions of Proposition 63 would have the following disastrous consequences for California communities:
Cause immediate harm to the most vulnerable in our state who rely on the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation program for their most basic mental health services.
Exacerbate the cash crunch counties are already experiencing in the current economic downturn by forcing them to direct sharply declining MHSA dollars into Medi-Cal services.
Threaten counties’ ability to continue providing services to more than 200,000 new clients who have been served with Mental Health Services Act funding, literally forcing thousands of vulnerable Californians out of treatment and shelter and onto the streets.
Stop short the dramatic gains California has made under the MHSA to expand mental health services to the many people in our communities who desperately need care.
As you know, Proposition 63 was approved overwhelmingly in 2004 by voters who recognized the dire need to address decades of inadequate state funding to meet the most basic needs of mental health consumers in communities across California. By calling for the redirection of MHSA dollars into existing state and county programs, the Governor’s proposal completely undermines the intent of the voters to expand mental health services to reach thousands more who need services but who cannot be served without additional funding.
In short, the Governor’s proposal threatens the tens of thousands of people who rely on state-supported mental health services for their basic survival and ability to live safely in their communities, and it turns the clock back on California’s efforts to reach the approximately 60% of people living with disabling mental illness who have not historically been served by the State’s mental health system.
(Insert I or Name of Organization or Association) urge your immediate rejection of the Governor’s proposed redirection of MHSA dollars to the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation Program, and the accompanying ballot proposal.
Sincerely,
(Insert Name, Title and Organization as Appropriate)
January 27, 2009
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, GovernorThe Honorable Karen Bass, Assembly SpeakerThe Honorable Darrell Steinberg, Senate President pro TemporeThe Honorable Senator ______________
The Honorable Assembly Member ______________
Dear Governor, Legislative leaders and local elected representatives:
(Insert I or Name of Organization/Association am/are) writing today on behalf of the more than 600,000 Californians served by the State’s public mental health system and the many more who desperately need and deserve services, we are writing to communicate our strong opposition to the Governor’s proposal to unravel the voter-approved Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The Governor’s FY 2009-10 budget proposal amounts to a shameful attack on people living with mental illness who literally have no other option for services and shelter. It also represents a dramatic attempt to undermine the voters’ clear call for additional services to help thousands more people living with mental illness access recovery and support in their own communities.
Despite the Administration’s characterization of his proposal to redirect $226.7 million in MHSA funding to reduce the State’s obligations to the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation Program as “one-time only,” the Governor’s FY 2009-10 proposal would completely and permanently eliminate General Fund support for this program. The fiscal and operational consequences of this proposal would be catastrophic to counties and the clients they serve. What’s more, the Governor’s call for a ballot initiative to reverse critical provisions of Proposition 63 would permanently lock California into the inadequate mental health financing system which existed before the landmark measure’s approval by voters.
If approved, the Governor’s proposal to redirect MHSA funds and reverse critical provisions of Proposition 63 would have the following disastrous consequences for California communities:
Cause immediate harm to the most vulnerable in our state who rely on the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation program for their most basic mental health services.
Exacerbate the cash crunch counties are already experiencing in the current economic downturn by forcing them to direct sharply declining MHSA dollars into Medi-Cal services.
Threaten counties’ ability to continue providing services to more than 200,000 new clients who have been served with Mental Health Services Act funding, literally forcing thousands of vulnerable Californians out of treatment and shelter and onto the streets.
Stop short the dramatic gains California has made under the MHSA to expand mental health services to the many people in our communities who desperately need care.
As you know, Proposition 63 was approved overwhelmingly in 2004 by voters who recognized the dire need to address decades of inadequate state funding to meet the most basic needs of mental health consumers in communities across California. By calling for the redirection of MHSA dollars into existing state and county programs, the Governor’s proposal completely undermines the intent of the voters to expand mental health services to reach thousands more who need services but who cannot be served without additional funding.
In short, the Governor’s proposal threatens the tens of thousands of people who rely on state-supported mental health services for their basic survival and ability to live safely in their communities, and it turns the clock back on California’s efforts to reach the approximately 60% of people living with disabling mental illness who have not historically been served by the State’s mental health system.
(Insert I or Name of Organization or Association) urge your immediate rejection of the Governor’s proposed redirection of MHSA dollars to the Medi-Cal Managed Care Consolidation Program, and the accompanying ballot proposal.
Sincerely,
(Insert Name, Title and Organization as Appropriate)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
