This is actually funny. Gavin Newsom’s
@GovPressOffice didn’t read my article.
They based their response on my email requesting comment, in which I linked to a
@ManhattanInst report, “School-Based Mental Health Initiatives: Challenges and Considerations for Policymakers,” summarizing peer-reviewed research on school-based mental health initiatives that found weak evidence for them.
My article was not based on that report, though the report itself is excellent: incredibly well researched and written by my colleague, mental health policy expert
@CarolynGorman_.
At no point in my article do I argue that we should wait until a child is in severe crisis to intervene. Had they read it, they would know that.
In 2004, I was a child experiencing severe mental health crises, and California’s response then, as it is today, was to repeatedly offer short-term interventions. This only reinforced the cycle of crisis. Over a 10-month period in California, I was placed in emergency rooms, psychiatric hospitals, group homes, and outpatient programs. I had to go out of state to get the care I needed: a psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF) in Utah.
PRTFs are secure facilities capable of providing care for a length of time determined by medical need, not an arbitrary time limit. California didn’t even license PRTFs until 2022, and the state is building only eight of them, totaling 158 beds for the whole state. None are currently open, and many are years out from opening.
After deadline, I received the most unhinged, and revealing, response from
@GavinNewsom's administration to my request for comment. They referred to PRTFs as “cruel policies like keeping kids away from their parents and locking them in mental hospitals.”
Calling lifesaving psychiatric residential care “cruel” only reinforces my reporting. It shows they know nothing about the mental health needs of children with severe psychiatric issues and are willing to gamble with their lives.
The investment in secure youth psychiatric residential care falls far short of what is needed. If they had consulted with hospital leaders who see children repeatedly cycling through crisis care and traveling hundreds of miles to access it, as I did for this article, they would know that.
Dousing all children in mental health messaging and programming is a bad strategy. Leaving youth with severe issues to cycle through a revolving door of short-term care is neglectful.
Also, I’m not “MAGA.” I’m a former liberal and former California resident. I left the state because of its bad policies, and I am often reassured when I do deep dives into California state policy that I made the right decision.
The latest misleading effort by a MAGA-aligned institute masquerading as a news outlet is citing their OWN REPORT as the basis for this “news” … a report that has not been peer-reviewed nor one that looks comprehensively at the program — for instance, this is not limited to just schools (something they claim).
FACT: It goes against research and best practices to wait until a child is in a severe crisis to intervene – and providing children with mental health tools helps prevent these crises.
FACT: Early intervention is only one piece of the state’s strategy. It is NOT the only strategy.
FACT: Most young people can and do receive care successfully in less restrictive settings based on their individual clinical needs.
FACT: Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP)-funded projects for youth are only ONE component of a much broader statewide transformation to address youth behavioral health needs.
FACT: The Children Youth Behavioral Health Initiative (CYBHI) supplements broader support through separate but coordinated efforts including Proposition 1, which is closing the decades-long gap in mental health services and treatment.
FACT: Proposition 1 is funding one of the most significant behavioral health infrastructure expansions California has ever undertaken.
FACT: Thanks to Prop 1, the state is building new treatment facilities, expanding crisis and residential care, and adding thousands of behavioral health beds and outpatient treatment slots across every region. Rounds 1 and 2 alone fund 177 projects across 333 facilities, adding 6,919 new beds and 27,561 outpatient slots, surpassing Proposition 1’s capacity goals.
FACT: Since 2021, BHCIP investments have supported 437 projects to expand 546 facilities, creating 9,553 new beds and more than 47,000 outpatient slots that will serve over 5.4 million Californians each year.