As director of the Mental Health Association in Santa Barbara, my concern over the impact of Proposition IE—which is titled “Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget”—may not be surprising. This measure will redirect funds from the Mental Health Services Act to the state general fund.

The irony is that this elimination of program funding will most certainly end up costing the state more, in the form of emergency care. Californians inherently knew that our mental health system is woefully underfunded, and made the right choice to pass the Mental Health Services Act (now fondly known as Prop. 63) in the first place. Just a few years later, the promises of Prop. 63 are just beginning to be met. Our own Garden Street Apartments were funded in part by this vital funding stream. This housing is just one of the projects—another is El Carrillo—enabling formerly homeless individuals to live in their own homes, address their mental health challenges, and begin a life of health and recovery.

I’d like to take a few minutes to share with you one among the thousands of examples, right here in Santa Barbara County, that show why any cuts in mental health funding will have a detrimental affect on real people.

Mary is one of the selected tenants who moved into our Garden Streets Apartments in November. This new housing complex dedicates 38 of its 51 apartments to adults living with mental illness, and received more than 300 applications for these few spots. For many years, Mary has endured panic disorder and depression. This manifested itself to a debilitating level after an unfortunate series of events that would have traumatized any of us. She lost her job, experienced tragic losses in her family relationships, and lived the vulnerable life of a homeless woman.

To the compassionate people who tried to help Mary get back on track, it became evident that her most glaring need was for a safe and affordable home providing her a secure place where she could heal. Good fortune finally caught up with Mary after her case worker helped her apply to live at the Garden Street Apartment. In just five short months, she has become a shining example of success, working as a volunteer to help others, and taking time to tend to her mental health.

Without this home—without these funds—Mary and others would very possibly continue to suffer, on our streets. It is not good for any of us to have this happen in our community. I urge you to consider the many adverse consequences of less funding for mental health services.

I commend the many vocal advocates and leaders, including the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, who weren’t fooled by the deceptive wording of Proposition 1E supporters, such as TK, who casually explain that 1E is “a temporary redirection of funds to related areas.” But there are no restrictions requiring that these funds be redirected anywhere in particular, let alone to other mental health services.

As irony would have it, May is National Mental Health Month. In the spirit of this national recognition, I hope that we will each look deep in our hearts and realize that no financial benefit can be realized by inflicting more hardship on people with real needs, and real potential for recovery.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
64.0°
Wind:
6 SE

Surf Report