County Needs Fair Shake on Funds : The county deserves a bigger share when state gives out mental health monies

Imagine that you made an error in financial judgment some 33 years ago, and you are still paying for it today. And paying. And paying.

That’s the burden San Diego County--and many other late-developing California counties--bear today because of mental health policy decisions made decades ago. In 1957, when the state was developing its funding policy for then-voluntary county mental health programs, San Diego was putting its money into its own county mental hospital and didn’t jump aboard the gravy train.

When it subsequently did seek state funds for county mental health programs (which the state declared mandatory in 1968), funding patterns were already set in stone.

The result: San Diego County, with 2.4 million people, today receives $19 per capita, $9 less than the state average, and less than a third of the $62 per person received by politically powerful San Francisco, whose population is far less than half of San Diego’s.

The impact of this unfair situation can be seen on San Diego’s streets every day. Some of those clearly disturbed people you see wandering downtown might be receiving help if the system were designed more equitably. Less money means fewer mental health clinics and other programs. The county also is limited to a horribly disproportionate number of state-funded beds in state mental hospitals.

The Legislature should straighten the system out. But with Los Angeles and San Francisco enjoying better-than-average funding allocations, that hasn’t happened.

Last week, the county played its other card when it began court arguments in a 4-year-old case designed to overturn the system. To do so, the county will make two arguments: that the entire funding system violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions, and that the state is consistently violating a 1985 law calling for all newly allocated mental health money to be funneled toward counties like San Diego and Fresno.

San Diego’s opponents, which include the state attorney general’s office and the city of San Francisco, argue that communities that were quick to take advantage of state funding and build mental health programs shouldn’t see their efforts crippled by Johnny-come-lately counties like San Diego.

They also claim that, despite its larger size, San Diego may not have the same mental health needs as places like San Francisco. But San Diego’s lawyers will offer epidemiological studies that they say show that mental health needs are roughly equal everywhere.

County attorneys claim San Diego has been shortchanged $8 million to $18 million annually since 1980 for programs that indirectly affect everyone in the county. With that much at stake, the Legislature must find a way to gradually give San Diego County its deserved share of mental health funding.