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

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

Yes on 63

http://digital.library.ucla.edu/websites/2004_996_009/index.htm%20

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

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

Orange County Network of Care

For anyone interested in mental health issues
http://orange.networkofcare.org/mh/home/index.cfm

Mental Health Services Act Orange County Brochure

http://ochealthinfo.com/mhsa/downloads/mhsa-brochure.pdf

Sign Petition and Tell Governor Schwarzenegger to NOT use Proposition 63 funds to balance the California budget

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/protect-proposition-63.html

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/

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.