The Brief

A little more than a year after Californians approved a $6.4 billion mental health bond with a nail-bitingly close vote, we’re getting our first glimpse into how that money will be spent.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom awarded nearly half of the money to projects that range from a crisis stabilization unit in rural Del Norte County to a residential addiction treatment program for mothers in Los Angeles. The initial $3.3 billion should fund more than 5,000 treatment beds and 21,800 outpatient treatment slots for people struggling with their mental health or addiction, according to his office.

That’s 74% of the beds and 82% of the outpatient treatment slots that the bond initially promised.

“It’s the issue of our time, and we’re not taking our time,” Newsom said during a news conference about the funding. “We’re addressing this crisis with that sense of urgency that you deserve.”

Mental health advocates and county leaders say they are impressed with the speed with which the state has allocated awards, and with improved geographic distribution to areas like the Central Valley when compared to past rounds of funding.

But they are also voicing concerns that California is rushing a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” without adequately analyzing the types of mental health services the state most needs. This analysis is especially important, they say, given that Newsom unrolled a raft of new mental health and substance use policies over the past few years.

Adding to the complexity: massive state and federal funding cuts are looming for mental health services.

While calling the bond “unbelievably significant,” Michelle Cabrera, executive director of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, said the new state policies will require investment in specialized forms of treatment. In part for this reason, she would have liked for counties to be able to “hit pause and really reflect on what’s around the corner.”

“I think we were surprised by the drive to go so hard right now when there’s still a lot that needs to be worked out,” she said.

More even distribution of funds

Now, you may be wondering: Where is all this money going? Is any going to my community? And, how long before I can expect to see results?

Los Angeles County received a little over $1 billion for 35 projects. The nine-county Bay Area won almost $500 million for 19 projects. Fresno County, which in recent years has been overlooked for such funds, won awards for four different projects.The greatest number of grants went toward residential facilities treating substance use disorders in adults, followed closely by outpatient addiction programs and mental health clinics. But money also went toward sobering centers, “peer respite” programs staffed by people who have experienced their own mental health challenges, and programs specifically for children and adolescents.

That money comes from Proposition 1, which California voters approved by the slimmest of margins — 50.2% to 49.8% — in March 2024. About $4.4 billion of that $6.4 billion bond is for mental health and addiction treatment beds. The rest is for permanent housing that comes with services and support for people struggling with mental illness or addiction.

The funding is supposed to bolster Newsom’s larger mental health agenda. He signed legislation that makes it easier to place people in treatment (both voluntarily and involuntarily), and attempted to crack down on the homeless encampments where people grappling with mental illness or addiction sometimes live.

But some mental health advocates worry the state doesn’t even know what services already exist in each county, let alone having a clear picture of the types of treatment that will be necessary to meet demand created by these new policies.

“It really can’t be overstated how much of an issue it is that the state doesn’t have a system for doing this,” said Corey Hashida, a senior research associate with the Steinberg Institute, a Sacramento-based mental health advocacy organization. In their research, Hashida and his colleagues have found a shortage of short-term crisis beds around the state. Despite the fact that those types of beds tend to be less costly and less restrictive, he said, much of the focus has centered on creating inpatient psychiatric beds.

In addition to the $3.3 billion in Prop. 1 money already spoken for, applications recently opened for $800 million, which Newsom’s office plans to award to fund more treatment beds next spring. Another $2 billion will go toward new permanent housing as part of Newsom’s Homekey+ program — including $1 billion earmarked for veterans. The state is expected to decide those awards this summer.

The money for treatment beds will be funneled through an existing state program that has doled out $1.8 million to help build facilities for mental health and substance use treatment since its launch in 2021. With the influx of Prop. 1 money, the program will expand by nearly 150%.

But the existing behavioral health grant program hasn’t always met California’s needs, according to a report this year by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings and Tulare counties) has the greatest need for more adult inpatient mental health beds, according to an estimate by the RAND think tank. Yet, prior to Prop. 1, the state grants funded no beds of that type in that region, according to the LAO report. Instead, 55% of adult inpatient mental health beds funded by the grants were in the places least likely to need them: San Diego and Los Angeles counties, the northern San Joaquin Valley and the north-eastern corner of the state, from Modoc to Sacramento counties.

In the past, Fresno County was one of the areas left out of state funding awards despite needing more psychiatric treatment beds, said Susan Holt, director of the county’s Department of Behavioral Health. When the county’s beds are full, patients have to go to the surrounding counties — or sometimes as far as Northern or Southern California — to find care, she said.

Even so, the state rejected two applications in 2022 that would have helped Fresno County build new psychiatric facilities. A third application was granted, but the state Department of Health Care Services rescinded the money after the building the county intended to renovate and turn into a residential treatment center burned down.

The region’s luck appears to have changed with Prop. 1. Fresno County’s three awards in the latest funding round should help the county create 32 new in-patient beds and 2,255 outpatient treatment slots. One of the new facilities will be a locked unit for people suffering from severe substance use disorder, or both mental illness and substance use disorder. That’s being created in response to a law Newsom signed in 2023 that, starting last year, has made it easier to compel people with serious mental illnesses and substance use disorders to receive involuntary treatment.

A fourth award, to Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, will allow the hospital to add 107 in-patient beds.

The fact that the Central Valley fared well this time, Holt said, is “a very good indication that the state is working to evaluate where the gaps are and allocate resources accordingly.”

Another area that won out this time is the North Coast region of California, which stretches from Del Norte to Sonoma counties. It received the most money per-capita of any region — more than $24 million per 100,000 residents.

Of that money, $4 million will go to Sutter Coast Hospital to help build Del Norte County’s first psychiatric facility. Because there currently are no inpatient or outpatient treatment units in the entire county, patients needing psychiatric care sometimes have to travel as far as Sacramento, a nearly seven-hour drive.

The $4 million grant will fund a new outpatient crisis facility in Crescent City, where patients can stabilize for up to 23 hours before being discharged or transferred to a longer-term facility.

“This one we thought was going to be a long shot,” said Jodi Nerell, director of local mental health engagement for Sutter Health, who pointed out that prior state grants rarely funded these types of facilities in rural areas. She called it “a huge win.” The Crescent City project is expected to open in the first quarter of 2026.

Tight timelines for Prop. 1 projects 

Ten of the Prop. 1 projects are supposed to be finished this year, including four this summer — a quick turnaround in a state where high construction costs and tricky permitting processes often lead to project delays. A CalMatters investigation of a 2018 $2 billion housing bond shows how big promises can lead to disappointment. More than five years after California voters approved No Place Like Home, just 1,797 of the 20,000 homes promised for people living with mental illness had been built.

“The timelines are tight,” Holt, from Fresno County’s Department of Behavioral Health, said of the Prop. 1 funds. “We are working feverishly to address all of the conditions, but they are mighty. And it is a very complex process to execute these projects.”

Prop. 1 dollars are intended to fund “launch ready” projects that can be finished quickly. That means applicants have to prove a long list of factors, including that they own or have a long-term lease for the project site, they have the support of the surrounding community, and that they also have their own funding to pour into the project.

Despite that, county leaders say some of the same issues that delayed No Place Like Home construction — such as NIMBYism — could still prove an issue this time. Cabrera, of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, said it’s important to continue to track the implementation and sustainability of these projects over time.

“We can look at something on paper and decide that ‘yes, it’s what the community needs,’ and then when we get to the local planning and approvals process, we get stuck in that,” she said.

A person walks by a homeless encampment in downtown Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2022.

(

Larry Valenzuela

/

CalMatters/CatchLight Local

)

The state was prioritizing launch-ready projects even before Prop. 1. But that mindset can make it harder for small and disadvantaged applicants to apply, and can mean the state misses out on funding complex, hard-to-build facilities, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office report.

That’s part of the reason Kern County didn’t try for Prop. 1 funding in round one, said Alison Burrowes, director of the county’s behavioral health department. The county has a lengthy process it must adhere to before it buys property or kicks off a building project, which doesn’t align with the state’s quick-turnaround attitude, Burrowes said.

“For us to have the land and the shovel-ready projects,” she said, “we just didn’t have anything in the wings.” Instead, Kern County supported the city of Bakersfield as it sought (and won) a grant for an outpatient substance use treatment facility.

Rural communities have it particularly tough, said Nerell of Sutter Health. Submitting these applications requires a huge administrative lift, and small, rural facilities don’t have staff to dedicate to that task, she said.

“It’s a challenge for small communities in rural areas to go after these types of things because it just requires a lot of all hands on deck,” Nerell said. “It was a daunting task thinking of how we could do this in a rural area.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.