Additional Funds for Mental Health at Stake at Trial

A San Diego County lawsuit that seeks to increase state funding for local mental health programs begins today in Superior Court in a trial that could have far-reaching implications in the way these funds are distributed statewide.

County officials hope the lawsuit will force the state Department of Mental Health to allocate funds according to population. Opponents of the lawsuit, which include several other counties, said that funding formulas should remain unchanged.

Opponents argue that San Diego County receives less money because local officials did not bother to establish an effective mental health program in the 1960s and early 1970s, when funding for these programs was plentiful. The county is now paying for its inaction and lack of vision, they said.

Deputy county counsel Michael Poynor brushed the opponents’ arguments aside and said the “bottom line” is that the state uses “an unequal historical” method to allocate mental health funds, based on how much the counties received more than 30 years ago, that has put San Diego County at a severe disadvantage.

Although San Diego is the second-largest county in the state, it ranks near the bottom of California’s 58 counties in funding it receives for mental health programs.

“The ultimate goal is to have the judge declare the state scheme for funding mental health unconstitutional,” Poynor said. “We’re going to ask for an order to the Legislature to reallocate funds on a reasonable basis among the 58 counties.”

According to Poynor’s figures, counties receive an average of $28 per person for mental health care from the state. San Diego County’s share actually comes out to $19 per person, he said. By comparison, San Francisco, which has one-third the population of San Diego County, receives $62 per person, Poynor added.

County officials estimated that San Diego County has lost up to $18 million a year in state funding for the mentally ill since 1980.

The root of the problem dates back to 1957, Poynor said. In 1957, when counties began applying to the state for funds to run their mental health programs, San Diego chose not to participate because it was building a 100-bed county facility. At the time, San Diego County was the only county in the state to own its own mental health facility, he said.

In 1964, when San Diego County decided to begin applying for state funds, “the other counties had gotten a head start” and had their state-funded programs in place.

“This head start has remained a key advantage for them ever since,” Poynor said.

In addition to having the state’s funding formula declared unconstitutional, Poynor said the lawsuit also seeks a refund or credit of $20 million from the state. The state has withheld that much from the county for using more than its share of beds in state-run mental hospitals over the past 15 years.

“Here’s another example of inequality. The state has allocated San Diego, with 2.5 million people, to use 31 hospital beds free of charge. San Francisco is entitled to use 240 beds,” Poynor said.

However, opponents of the lawsuit remain unconvinced by the county’s argument.

“They (San Diego County) are basically trying to take money from counties with long-established mental health programs,” said Stewart Foreman, San Francisco deputy city attorney. “They got into the program late, at a time when funding limits, because of Proposition 13 and other considerations, have made it impossible from a political standpoint to put more money into the system.”

Smaller counties, such as San Francisco, and larger counties, such as Los Angeles, get more money because they have established programs and need the funds more, he added.

Foreman represents nine counties, including Los Angeles County, who have sided with the attorney general’s office to defeat the lawsuit. Both Foreman and Deputy Att. Gen. John Venegas, who is representing the state Department of Mental Health in the lawsuit, said the complaint is “without merit.”

The lawsuit will be heard in a non-jury trial by Superior Court Judge Barbara Gamer and is actually a consolidation of two lawsuits filed by the county against the state since 1986.

In addition, Fresno County officials agreed to consolidate a similar lawsuit they had filed against the state with the complaint filed by San Diego County.

Venegas said he will argue that the state has been allocating the funds according to the Legislature’s wishes.

“San Diego’s share of funds was allocated by the Legislature,” said Venegas. “The state Department of Mental Health has followed what the legislature told it to do.”

If San Diego County wants to get the funding formula changed, it should go to the Legislature rather than try to change it in court, Venegas argued.

“We believe that what San Diego is complaining about is not for the courts to decide,” Venegas said. Poynor said the state is also violating existing law by allocating less money to under-funded counties like San Diego.

“We view current law as saying when new money comes into the state mental health budget, it should go to counties that are below the state average. . . . The state continues to take new money, almost half of it, and give it to counties already above the state average,” he said.

Ironically, the state’s cutback in mental health funding this year put San Diego County’s funding somewhat more in line with other counties. Of the $61 million cut by the governor statewide, San Fancisco lost $12 million, while San Diego suffered only a $500,000 cut.