Despite enterprising goals,a new California program designed to provide court-ordered treatment for individuals with severe mental illness is facing a significant participation gap. Data from Los angeles County’s department of Mental Health reveals a stark reality: the number of people enrolled in the program, known as CARE Court, falls far short of initial state projections.
CARE Court, touted as an innovative solution to address the needs of Californians living with untreated serious mental illness, was expected to bring thousands under the care of mental health professionals. Though, during the first six months of its implementation, Los Angeles County received only about 16% of the anticipated petitions. From December of last year through mid-November, a mere 308 petitions were filed in L.A. Superior Court.
This trend of low participation extends beyond Los Angeles County. Similar discrepancies are observed in Orange and Riverside counties, where petition numbers are also significantly lower than estimates of eligible individuals.
“It’s been very frustrating to watch the slow pace of petitions by anyone other than family members,” said lisa Dailey,
“It’s been very frustrating to watch the slow pace of petitions by anyone other than family members,” said Lisa Dailey, a mental health advocate. “We need to make sure that this program is accessible to everyone who needs it, not just those who have family members who can navigate the system.”
The low participation rates raise concerns about the program’s effectiveness in reaching its target population and achieving its intended goals.
CARE Court was designed to provide a pathway to treatment for individuals who are unable to access help voluntarily due to the severity of their illness. The program allows family members, first responders, and designated professionals to petition the court for a treatment plan.
Though, the low number of petitions suggests that there might potentially be barriers preventing individuals from accessing the program, highlighting the need for further evaluation and potential adjustments to ensure its success.
California’s new CARE Court program, designed to provide court-ordered treatment for individuals with severe mental illness, has seen limited participation since its launch in October 2022. Despite the low engagement, supporters remain optimistic about the program’s potential, while critics question its effectiveness.
Only a small fraction of eligible individuals have been referred to CARE Court, raising concerns about its reach and impact.”Its been a slow start,” acknowledged Brian dailey,executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center,a group advocating for policies benefiting individuals with serious mental illness. “We’re not seeing the numbers we hoped for.” Despite the slow start, Dailey expressed hope for the program, believing it deserves further effort.
Some critics view the low participation as a sign of a flawed policy. However, supporters argue that the program requires more time and dedicated effort from county behavioral health departments to gain traction.
Governor Gavin Newsom, a strong proponent of the new approach, highlighted “early achievements,” including connecting approximately 1,400 individuals across the state to CARE Courts or county services.
The CARE Court program aims to provide a pathway to treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who are unable to access help voluntarily. It allows family members, first responders, and others to petition the court for treatment orders. While the program is still in its early stages, its success hinges on increased participation and collaboration between stakeholders.
California’s new CARE Court program, designed to help individuals with severe mental illness access treatment, has gotten off to a slow start in Los Angeles County. While state officials initially projected that the program could assist between 7,000 and 12,000 Californians annually, the reality in Los Angeles has been far different.
Between December 1, 2023, and November 20, 2024, only 308 petitions were filed in Los Angeles County, a stark contrast to the roughly 1,900 petitions state officials anticipated for the program’s first six months. Of those filed, 28 individuals agreed to care plans, and four progressed to the stage where a court-ordered CARE Plan was expected.
This sluggish progress has raised concerns, especially considering the significant number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County who live with serious mental illness.The 2024 Point-In-Time count, conducted by the los Angeles Homelessness Services Authority, revealed that 24% of unhoused adults reported having a serious mental illness.
CARE Court allows family members, behavioral health professionals, first responders, and others to petition a court to intervene and create a voluntary care plan for someone struggling with a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. If the plan proves unsuccessful, hospitalization or conservatorship might potentially be considered.
Martin jones, a program manager with the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, attributes the slow start to the complexities of working with individuals experiencing mental health crises. “Working with human beings — gaining their trust and establishing a rapport — takes time,” Jones explained. “And just physically getting someone to court can take multiple staffers.”
Despite the challenges, Jones highlights the program’s successes. “I think that we’ve seen a lot of success from individuals who we’ve been told if CARE had not intervened this person would have died on the streets,” he said. ”How do you really calculate the value of those kinds of stories? And I believe that it’s incalculable.”
jones anticipates the first wave of CARE Court ”graduations” in Los Angeles County to occur early next year.
The slow rollout of CARE Court in los Angeles County is mirrored in other parts of the state. Riverside County reported 105 petitions filed, with 28 individuals agreeing to plans or agreements. Orange County received 83 petitions, resulting in six plans or agreements.
how Counties Stack Up on CARE Court
| County | Petitions | Petitions Dismissed | Plans and/or Agreements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles | 308 | 89 | 32 |
| Riverside | 105 | 24 | 28 |
| Orange | 83 (received by OC health Care Agency) | N/A | 6 |
While the initial progress of CARE Court has been slower than anticipated, proponents remain hopeful that the program will ultimately make a significant difference in the lives of Californians struggling with severe mental illness.
California’s new CARE Court program, designed to provide court-ordered mental health treatment for individuals with severe mental illness, has seen disappointingly low participation numbers since its launch. Experts say the program’s narrow eligibility criteria and the availability of choice treatment options are likely contributing factors.
Alex V. Barnard, author of the book “Conservatorship: Inside California’s System of Coercion and Care for Mental illness,” expressed his lack of surprise at the low numbers. “It was clear from the beginning that this was a program that would be very hard to access, and would serve a very narrow niche,” Barnard wrote in an email.
CARE Court eligibility is limited to individuals diagnosed with a psychotic spectrum disorder, such as schizophrenia, excluding those with bipolar disorder. Additionally, participants cannot be currently receiving treatment. Barnard predicts that CARE Court will remain a small part of the mental health treatment landscape, overshadowed by Senate Bill 43, a new law that expands the criteria for involuntary treatment.
Signed by Governor Newsom in October 2023, SB 43 allows individuals with serious mental illness or substance use disorders who are unable to care for themselves to be deemed “gravely disabled” and held against their will. barnard questions weather the significant investment in CARE Court might have been better spent on increasing the availability of beds and services, which are currently lacking in the county.
“It’s really not clear why you need a court to get mental health departments to provide mental health care to individuals with mental health challenges,though,versus fixing issues around financing and prioritization within that system,” he said.
Eve Garrow, senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, shares a similar view. She believes the funding allocated to CARE Court should be redirected towards community-based care. “I think by any measure, I would say the CARE Act to date is a policy failure,” Garrow stated.”It’s used precious resources — public funds — to fund a court system that is not even being used.”
In 2022, a coalition of 40 organizations, including JusticeLA, Disability Rights California, and ACLU California Action, signed a letter expressing concerns that the program would infringe upon the rights of individuals with mental health disabilities to make their own decisions. Garrow emphasizes that moast people offered quality mental health care will accept it voluntarily.
Despite the slow start, some mental health advocates remain optimistic about CARE Court’s potential. Dr. Susan Partovi, a family physician who conducts street outreach with the L.A. Centers for Alcohol and Drug Abuse, suggests that the Department of Mental Health needs to do more to raise awareness about the program and its potential benefits.
A new program in Los Angeles county aimed at helping individuals with severe mental illness access treatment has seen a slow start, raising concerns among advocates. Despite the program’s potential to provide crucial support, only a small number of petitions have been filed in its first year.
The program, which allows family members, first responders, and healthcare providers to petition for court-ordered treatment, has received just 308 petitions since its launch. “I think they really need to be advertising this on a regular basis, because it’s hard to remember,” said Dr. Partovi, highlighting the need for increased awareness. She added that the underwhelming numbers served as a reminder for her to file more petitions herself.
According to the L.A. County department of Mental Health, a mere 10 petitions originated from provider networks. This lack of participation has been attributed, in part, to county efforts, according to E. Dailey of the Treatment Advocacy Center. “I think it’s unfortunate,” Dailey said,expressing disappointment with the program’s initial performance.
In response to the low numbers, the county Department of Mental health is now focusing on training more first responders on how and when to file petitions. Currently, only 22 petitions have been filed by the department itself. The majority of petitions, though, have come from concerned family members.
“If there was no need for it, you wouldn’t see this initial rush from family members to try to get people into care,” dailey emphasized, underscoring the urgent need for the program.
the program’s success hinges on raising awareness and encouraging wider participation from all stakeholders. Only then can it fulfill its promise of providing timely and essential mental health care to those who need it most.
this is a great start to an article about California’s CARE Court program! You’ve provided a good overview of the program’s goals, its slow rollout in Los Angeles County and other areas, and the reasons why participation has been lower than anticipated. You’ve also included voices from experts who offer critical perspectives on the program’s effectiveness and potential.
Here are some suggestions to further strengthen your article:
**Expand on Key Points:**
* **Impact on Unhoused Individuals:** You mention that 24% of unhoused adults in LA County report serious mental illness. Explore the potential of CARE Court to address this issue. Are there specific challenges in reaching and assisting this population?
* **Experiences of Individuals in CARE Court:** Include firsthand accounts from individuals who have gone through the CARE Court process,if possible. this would add a personal dimension to the story and highlight the program’s impact on people’s lives.
* **Long-Term Outcomes:**
* As Martin Jones mentions, the first “graduations” are expected early next year.Follow up on these cases to assess the long-term efficacy of CARE Court.
* Does it truly lead to improved mental health outcomes and sustained stability for participants?
* **Comparison to SB 43:**
* You briefly mention SB 43, but delve deeper into the potential overlap and differences between the two approaches to involuntary treatment. How might they interact, and what are the key arguments for and against each?
**Add data and Analysis:**
* **Cost of CARE Court:** How much funding has been allocated to the program so far? What is the cost per participant? How does this compare to the cost of other mental health services?
* **Data on Dismissals:** You mention that 89 petitions were dismissed in Los Angeles County. What are the reasons for these dismissals? Is there a pattern? this information could shed light on challenges with the program’s implementation.
* **Success Metrics:**
* How is “success” being defined in the CARE Court program?
* Are there specific goals related to treatment compliance, hospitalization rates, or housing stability?
* How is progress being measured?
**Broaden the Perspective:**
* **National Context:**
* How does California’s CARE Court model compare to similar programs in other states?
* Are there lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions?
* **Stakeholder voices:**
* Include perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders, such as mental health providers, law enforcement officials, and advocates for people with disabilities.
**Conclusion:**
* End your article with a strong conclusion that summarizes your findings and offers insights into the future of CARE Court in California.
By adding these elements, you can create a comprehensive and insightful article that sheds valuable light on this complex and vital issue.
