California's CARE Court: A Promised Solution for Mental Health Treatment Falls Short

In 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed the CARE Court initiative aimed at addressing the state's growing homelessness crisis and the needs of individuals with severe mental illness. The plan sought to empower a court system to mandate treatment for these individuals and hold counties accountable for providing necessary services. However, a review of the legislative process reveals that the final version of the CARE Court law significantly diverged from its original ambitious goals, leading to limited enforcement capabilities and minimal participation in court-ordered treatment plans.

Times of San Diego

The CARE Court legislation underwent numerous amendments that narrowed its eligibility criteria and shifted its focus from mandatory treatment to voluntary agreements. As a result, by July 2025, only 528 individuals had enrolled in treatment plans, with 514 of those through voluntary agreements rather than court mandates. Assemblymember Ash Kalra, who opposed the measure, remarked on the disparity between the promised law and its actual implementation, stating, “It’s not surprising to me that it didn’t live up to all the hype of what was promised.”

Times of San Diego

Critics of the CARE Court, including civil rights organizations like the ACLU and Disability Rights California, argue that the law fails to adequately address the needs of mentally ill individuals while placing undue blame on counties for the homelessness crisis. Eve Garrow from the ACLU described the initiative as “window-dressing,” emphasizing that without guaranteed permanent housing, the program lacks the necessary resources to be effective. Additionally, concerns were raised about the lack of funding for supportive services, which were not included in the final bill despite calls for additional financial support.

Times of San Diego

State Senator Tom Umberg, a co-author of the original bill, acknowledged that the implementation of CARE Court has been inconsistent and that the program is still a “work in progress.” He noted that the law relies heavily on the discretion of judges to enforce accountability, which has led to variability in how counties respond to the program. The evolving criteria for eligibility and the increased burden on petitioners have further complicated the process, making it difficult for families and first responders to navigate the system effectively.

Times of San Diego

In response to criticisms, Newsom's spokesperson emphasized the importance of voluntary participation in the CARE Court process, arguing that coercion is often ineffective. However, the lack of mandatory treatment options has led to questions about the program's efficacy. As the state grapples with the ongoing homelessness crisis, the CARE Court's limitations highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach that includes both mental health treatment and permanent housing solutions.

Times of San Diego

• “I’ve wondered (about) the point of a court with no real power,” — Anita Fisher, Advocate

Times of San Diego

• “There’s very little political will in Sacramento for (funding permanent housing), given the price tag,” — Eve Garrow, ACLU of Southern California

Times of San Diego

• “I don’t think that we’ve done the kind of job that needs to be done,” — State Senator Tom Umberg

Times of San Diego

• “We don’t mandate involuntary treatment in the CARE Act at all,” — Scott Herin, Judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court

Times of San Diego

The CARE Court initiative, while well-intentioned, has faced significant challenges in its implementation, raising critical questions about its effectiveness in addressing the needs of California's most vulnerable populations.

Times of San Diego