Julia Ford was in the third trimester of her pregnancy when she moved out of an abandoned school bus in Oakland and into transitional housing at the Healthy Babies Project. The shelter had a treatment program founded by Majida Rahman.
“I kept hearing about it and finally I went there and stayed for a year,” Ford says. “I knew I couldn’t be pregnant and use drugs.”
Ford credits the structure of the program and her baby, whom she named Majida after the program’s founder, for her eventual sobriety. “I worked through the whole program and worked on old wounds related to why I used drugs when I was raped,” she says. “I got clean and was able to breastfeed my baby.”
Ford says it worked because she did it on her own terms. “If you force someone into alcohol or drug treatment against their will, they will rebel and use drugs again,” she says. “It only works when you want it to.”
Ford’s mother, 85, is being held in a locked facility by the state of California. Her daughter, Majida Wesley, became homeless during her freshman year of college, but she is now a successful college graduate and career woman. This lived experience is why Ford fiercely opposes Proposition 1, Governor Newsom’s ballot measure, which he calls “therapy, not a tent.”
If passed, Prop. 1 would divert funding from the Mental Health Services Act, and advocates say it would support already underfunded voluntary care and treatment programs in counties and cities while It claims to lower standards of institutions and involuntary care.
Wesley, now 27, remembers his mother working hard during the early stages of her recovery. She also remembers that her mother had a relapse over about a year when she was in elementary school. This is part of the process for as many as 85% of people recovering from addiction.
“I didn’t understand poverty and racism as much as I do now, but I wanted my life to be different,” she says.
Wesley attended community college in Long Beach, stayed with relatives until he was kicked out for paying more rent than he earned through work study, and eventually took refuge in a youth shelter in Hollywood. . Wesley said he was grateful to have a place to rest his head at night, which he shared with elderly people who had left nursing homes and people with various problems. It was the place. On the other hand, he remembers watching people unravel before his eyes.
“Many people were sober when they first arrived and were on drugs a few weeks later,” Wesley said. “The thing about evacuation centers is that you have to leave first thing in the morning and don’t get back until the evening.I earned 15 credits in school, had two jobs, and was in student government. But many others didn’t have them. They have to spend all day on the streets.”
Governor Newsom stated on his website that Prop. 1 would “help more than 11,000 Californians with the highest or most severe mental health needs.” Creating housing environments where people can live, recover, stabilize, and thrive will face the worst of the challenges.”
The proposal also promises $1 billion to veterans experiencing mental health issues, chemical dependence, and homelessness, but many mental health workers, advocates, and others like Ford People are professing serious reservations or outright opposition.
Karen Vicari, policy director for California Mental Health Care America, said diverting 30% of funding from programs and services at the city and county level would have serious consequences and would not address the core problem. He said he could not.
“More than half of California renters are severely rent-burdened, which means they are at risk of homelessness due to unexpectedly high bills,” Vicari said. “Homelessness in California is directly related to affordable housing, and the numbers will only increase until we have large amounts of affordable housing.
“Proposition 1 will not solve homelessness,” she says. “And she will have her 30% of the MHSA taken away. [Mental Health Services Act] Once funding is available, programs such as outpatient services, wellness centers, and peer-run services, which are known to be highly effective, will be undertaken first. ”
The bond portion of the proposal would fund treatment facilities built by private companies. It’s unclear how the costs of treatment in the building will be covered. Vicari said Prop. 1 is similar to past bills and falls short.
“If you look at what happened with No Place Like Home, which was approved by voters in 2018, the same amount of $1.9 billion was approved and about 1,700 homes were built,” Vicari said. To tell. Compare that to California’s 180,000 unhoused people and that’s a drop in the bucket. ”
Maurice Byrd is a harm reduction therapist who provides support and counseling to unhoused people suffering from mental health and substance abuse issues. Bird said the proposal is a clear example of legally enacted classism that is consistent with harm reduction best practices. Additionally, resources are being diverted from overburdened facilities that turn away or put people on waiting lists who desperately need help.
“This is a way to infantilize poor people whose way of life people may not agree with,” Bird says. “Last week I wrote 5150 [an involuntary treatment order] For someone who was so sick, unable to get dressed and in need of support, San Francisco police turned the person away. ”
San Francisco recorded 806 overdose deaths in 2023, but Byrd said the city’s standards of care are too high. “Some people would benefit from hospitalization, even if it’s just for stabilization, and they’re being turned away,” Bird said. “This prop is asking cities like San Francisco to make a 180 degree turn. Give TAP a call. [Treatment Access Program] Please seek medical treatment immediately. You will almost certainly be asked to call back tomorrow. ”
Bird said if Newsom had talked to people like him on the front lines, he would have recommended things like safe drug-taking sites that would prevent overdose deaths and reduce harm. He argues that it will make communities safer. And he would have recommended lower thresholds so people could voluntarily get the mental health care they need when they were ready.
“We don’t want people to be waiting around to get treatment,” Bird says. “When they show up and someone says, ‘I know we asked you to change, but we can’t help you,’ that’s the biggest contradiction.”
Gigi Crowder, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Contra Costa, said she would probably vote for Proposition 1. NAMI California is a co-sponsor of Proposition 1. What meets the needs of Californians with the most severe mental illnesses? Yes,” Crowder says. “I don’t think you should take money out of a pot that didn’t have enough money to put into another pot.”
She added, “I think you’re going to hear from counties that they don’t have enough money, and this part of the legislation allows us to hold them more accountable. The biggest thing is that each family member will have to spend more money on a bed.”
LaTanya Richard, a certified medical peer support professional and domestic violence advocate, is skeptical of Proposition 1. Richard connected her with support and resources to recover from her opioid addiction, and she credits the peer movement for accessing her mental health care. Necessary to receive a proper diagnosis. She’s now paying it forward by leading groups and support services for other Californians navigating similar challenges.
“This proposal would kill the peer movement,” Richard says. “It’s going to be devastating for mental health. They don’t see people who are like that. do not have Because they rely on their peers and county-run mental health services, people who are working, making a living, and trying to receive our services. Those guys are stable. If you take that away, you’re going to have more people without housing, more people who use drugs, more people who can’t get a job, more people who can’t keep a job. ”
