{"id":494546,"date":"2023-10-15T02:34:43","date_gmt":"2023-10-15T09:34:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/?p=494546"},"modified":"2026-02-12T17:18:40","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T01:18:40","slug":"return-of-the-ugly-laws-in-the-name-of-modernization-the-newsom-administration-wants-to-disappear-unhoused-and-disabled-people-from-the-streets-rebuild-the-asylums","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/2023\/10\/15\/return-of-the-ugly-laws-in-the-name-of-modernization-the-newsom-administration-wants-to-disappear-unhoused-and-disabled-people-from-the-streets-rebuild-the-asylums\/","title":{"rendered":"Return of the Ugly Laws: In the Name of \u2018Modernization,\u2019 the Newsom Administration Wants to Disappear Unhoused and Disabled People from the Streets, Rebuild the Asylums"},"content":{"rendered":"

Return of the Ugly Laws: In the Name of \u2018Modernization,\u2019 the Newsom Administration Wants to Disappear Unhoused and Disabled People from the Streets, Rebuild the Asylums<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Leah Harris\u00a0<\/strong><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

On October 1, over the vehement objections of disabled activists, <\/span>housing justice<\/span><\/a> activists, and <\/span>human rights<\/span><\/a> organizations<\/span><\/a>, the <\/span>Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act<\/span><\/a> went into effect in seven California counties. The law empowers family members, social service providers, police, and first responders to refer primarily unhoused people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses to a regime of civil courts that would compel them to accept a \u201ccare plan\u201d handed down by a judge. In theory, people are allowed to refuse the care plan, but non-compliance could potentially initiate institutionalization or even <\/span>conservatorship<\/span><\/a> proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inequity is baked into the program. Due to long standing medical and systemic racism, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color are more likely to be <\/span>unhoused<\/span><\/a>, receive severe mental illness <\/span>diagnoses,<\/span><\/a> be <\/span>subjected<\/span><\/a> to involuntary interventions, and therefore may be more frequently referred to CARE Court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The CARE Act is predicated on a big lie perpetrated by policymakers and marketed to the public: that houselessness is caused by \u201csevere and untreated\u201d mental illness and substance use. In a recent large-scale <\/span>survey<\/span><\/a> of unhoused Californians conducted by the University of California San Francisco, respondents reported high rents as the primary reason they became unhoused. They said that rent subsidies or one-time cash assistance would have kept them in their homes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite its bluster as a houselessness fix, CARE Court doesn\u2019t guarantee housing. \u201cThe promise of CARE Court is that you’ll get a housing plan,\u201d mental health activist <\/span>Keris J\u00e4n Myrick<\/span><\/a> told Disability Visibility Project. \u201cI’ve asked, \u2018How do people live in a plan? A plan is a piece of paper. I can’t live under a piece of paper.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Disability Rights California and allied civil rights groups fought to <\/span>halt the law<\/span><\/a> earlier this year, but their challenge was struck down by California\u2019s Supreme Court. Los Angeles County will roll out CARE Court on December 1, and it will be required in all California counties by December 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n

CARE Court is just the first in a series of measures backed by Governor Newsom that use the rhetoric of \u201cmodernization\u201d to chip away at hard-won rights emerging from deinstitutionalization in the 1960s and 1970s. Prior to 1967, psychiatrically, intellectually, and developmentally disabled Californians lacked legal protections against involuntary confinement in institutions. That changed with the passage of the <\/span>Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act<\/span><\/a>, designed to \u201cend the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders.\u201d LPS also established some of the first due process rights for people facing involuntary psychiatric commitments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Under LPS, people could not be forcibly institutionalized or placed under a conservatorship unless they were found to be a \u201cdanger to themselves or others,\u201d or \u201cgravely disabled\u2014\u201d defined as unable to provide for food, clothing, or shelter as a result of psychiatric disability. As flawed as the LPS protections are, they are some of the only safeguards on bodily autonomy that mad, mentally ill, and disabled Californians have had access to, and they are currently under attack.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Theo
Theo Henderson, a Black man with a shaved head, goatee, gold-tinted sunglasses, and wearing a hoodie with an image of Tutankhamun on it, speaks into a red and white megaphone at a protest. Behind Theo is a crowd of people wearing\u00a0face masks, with one holding up a sign that says “Being unhoused is not a crime.” Credit: WeTheUnhoused.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cReforming\u201d LPS by Expanding its Scope: SB 43<\/b><\/h4>\n

In September the California legislature passed SB 43, a bill designed to \u201creform\u201d LPS, with near-unanimous bipartisan support. The law was widely touted by <\/span>California Big City Mayors<\/span><\/a>, as well as the <\/span>California chapter<\/span><\/a> of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (a <\/span>family-led advocacy<\/span><\/a> group that began in <\/span>Wisconsin<\/span><\/a> in the 1970s, partly in reaction to strengthened patients\u2019 rights laws; the national organization has consistently supported forced interventions.)<\/span><\/p>\n

SB 43 would make it much easier to involuntarily confine\u00a0 disabled people under <\/span>5150 holds<\/span> (<\/span><\/a>which allow for a minimum 72-hour detention) and place them under conservatorships. The new law hinges on vastly expanding the LPS definition of \u201cgrave disability.\u201d Those deemed unable to meet their needs for \u201cmedical care and personal safety\u201d may now also come under state control.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The bill also broadens LPS\u2019 scope beyond mental health disabilities to allow involuntary holds and conservatorship proceedings against those labeled with a severe substance use disorder. This is despite significant evidence that forced intervention of all kinds, including unwanted drug treatment, leads to worse outcomes and an increased likelihood of fatal <\/span>overdose<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe have a higher substance use rate of people overdosing in houses, but we don’t see anyone kicking in the door and forcing them into treatment. It’s just the unhoused,\u201d Theo Henderson, Los Angeles-based activist and founder of the media and advocacy group <\/span>We the Unhoused<\/span><\/a> told Disability Visibility Project. \u201cWe can take advantage of them with the fake patronizing idea that \u2018we’re trying to do what is best\u2019 for them–which it\u2019s not.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Like <\/span>CARE Court<\/span><\/a>, SB 43 has been decried by <\/span>disability<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>human rights<\/span><\/a> groups for its potential to deepen already glaring racial inequities; Black and Latinx Californians are over 50% more likely to be subjected to involuntary 5150 holds. This law would also make it <\/span>easier<\/span><\/a> for businesses to call the cops on unhoused people, further exposing them to potentially deadly police encounters. According to <\/span>Washington Post<\/span><\/i> data, <\/span>twenty percent<\/span><\/a> of those killed by police in 2023 were experiencing or perceived to be experiencing a mental health crisis.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re running around saying it’s safe, it’s care, it’s safe, it’s care, No, it’s not. And these supporters who think that their loved ones are going to be helped, some of them are going to have <\/span>dead<\/span><\/a> loved ones and they’re going to wonder what the fuck happened,\u201d Myrick said.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cHere in Los Angeles we have business improvement districts (BID) in place that are the pseudo-arm of law enforcement,\u201d said Henderson. \u201cThey are running around tracking people that are on the street. I watch all the time how BID officers target unhoused people. All they have to do is drop the word to senior law enforcement or medical personnel, and they can target and remove that person under the auspices of this person having a \u2018mental disorder.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

SB 43 will also streamline the conservatorship process, removing the obligation of individuals\u2019 care providers to testify. It would allow testimony based on medical records from so-called \u201cexpert witnesses” who have no direct knowledge of the person involved. Previously, such information was considered hearsay and inadmissible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Newsom <\/span>signed<\/span><\/a> SB 43 into law on World Mental Health Day. \u201cIt\u2019s outrageous Governor Newsom chose World Mental Health Day to sign the first in a series of bills to overhaul mental health and make it easier to lock up people with mental health disabilities,\u201d Deb Roth, senior legislative advocate with Disability Rights California, said in a <\/span>statement<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The law\u00a0 is set to go into effect in early 2024. However, states and counties would be allowed to postpone implementation until 2026 amidst concerns about the \u201cburden it might place on already crowded psychiatric facilities,\u201d<\/span> according<\/span><\/a> to the <\/span>Los Angeles Times<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c[I] wonder who is going to benefit,\u201d <\/span>Tweeted<\/span><\/a> Vanessa Ramos, disability, civil, and human rights advocate. \u201cI would guess profits will go to staff and construction developers of locked institutions (jails), the pharmaceutical companies and their affiliates (forced meds\/injections), the county and jail staff, and the police\u2026We are witnessing the banishment of poor and disabled people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBait and Switch\u201d Bond: AB 531<\/b><\/h4>\n

AB 531, The Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, is the next in this package of carceral policies marketed to legislators and taxpayers as \u201cmodernization.\u201d Unlike SB 43, this bond measure will be put to voters in March 2024. It was originally set at $4.68 billion, but upon <\/span>request<\/span><\/a> of several big city mayors and supervisors, the amount was increased to over $6.4 billion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While the <\/span>bond measure<\/span><\/a> is touted as expanding access to housing, only 1.6 billion of the $6.4 billion bond will be spent on housing for veterans and others who are homeless and meet \u201cspecified criteria.\u201d \u201cPermanent supportive housing\u201d remains undefined in the bill text. The remaining billions provide grants for the construction of 10,000 behavioral health treatment <\/span>beds<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The bond measure had originally included specific language prohibiting the use of funds for locked facilities. In the lead-up to September\u2019s legislative vote, the Newsom administration had repeatedly claimed that the funds would go only to \u201cvoluntary, unlocked\u201d facilities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the final week of the legislative session, the words \u201cunlocked\u201d and \u201cvoluntary\u201d were stripped from the bill text. (A June 2023 fact sheet from the Newsom Administration using the language of \u201ccommunity-based\u201d \u201cvoluntary\u201d and \u201cunlocked\u201d settings has since been scrubbed from the Internet, but DVP obtained an <\/span>archived<\/span><\/a> version.)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

According to <\/span>Cal Matters<\/span><\/a>, \u201cthe replacement language mirrors 2021 legislation that created the <\/span>Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP)<\/span><\/a>, a $2.2 billion investment that has been used to fund locked facilities like acute psychiatric hospitals.\u201d Current grantees under BHCIP include several private, for-profit, and <\/span>private-equity-owned<\/span><\/a> entities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In an email to Disability Visibility Project, Clare Cortright, an attorney with lived experience and policy director of Cal Voices, a peer support and advocacy group, asked: \u201cWhy are we allowing private, for-profit entities to conduct clear public functions, historical public functions, and introduce a profit motive to involuntary detention? And why is the State publicly financing these entities?\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This package of bills works in tandem. SB 43 vastly expands the number of people who can be disappeared off the streets and be subjected to involuntary intervention and conservatorships, while AB 531 would provide locked facilities to confine people. It\u2019s not hyperbole to say that if this bond measure passes\u2014and it is likely to, given that it\u2019s being touted as a fix for houselessness, a top concern among voters\u2014California will be literally rebuilding the asylums.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s not disappear people like they did back in the day with ugly laws and call what we are doing care, caring, and\/or safe,\u201d <\/span>wrote<\/span><\/a> Myrick on LinkedIn last month.<\/span><\/p>\n

Restructuring the Mental Health Services Act: SB 326<\/b><\/h4>\n

Lastly, the Newsom administration is seeking to restructure the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), enacted in 2004 and funded by the \u201cmillionaire tax,\u201d also known as Prop 63. MHSA was a grassroots effort emerging from a decade of disabled peoples\u2019 advocacy and meaningful input. But SB 326 \u201cwas drafted and amended behind closed doors without any involvement from the primary stakeholders \u2013 persons with mental health disabilities,\u201d according to a Cal Voices fact sheet. Activists decried the dizzying speed at which this bill moved, which did not allow adequate time to process or respond to the numerous proposed changes.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

SB 326 claims to focus on the \u201cuntreated severely mentally ill\u201d and unhoused community, while diverting funds away from vital prevention and peer-run programs created by and for BIPOC and LGBTQ communities to fund vaguely defined \u201chousing interventions.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Cal Voices fact sheet notes: \u201cDiverting MHSA services funds to \u2018housing interventions\u2019 is unacceptable. \u2018Housing interventions\u2019 are not true, permanent housing \u2013 the money can and will be used for short-term clinical treatment facility stays, including involuntary and locked facilities\u2026326 is just another too little, too late, inadequate, superficial response to our housing crisis that has landed most heavily on disabled people who have no social safety net.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

On August 23, advocates mobilized in Sacramento to demand that the California legislature oppose SB 326. Kelechi Ubozoh, mental health advocate and <\/span>author<\/span><\/a> of <\/span>We\u2019ve Been Too Patient<\/span><\/i> was one of the people who testified against the bill.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy mentor Sally Zinman was one of the lead advocates in the development of the MHSA,\u201d Ubozoh told Disability Visibility Project. \u201cOne of the last things she warned me of before she died was that California was going backward, that we would see more forced treatment, more involuntary services, and that our recovery-based programming would be at risk, our voices would be tokenized and not listened to. During my testimony, through my tears, I saw that she was right.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

SB 326 passed the legislature with near-unanimous support; along with AB 531, it will be put to the voters in March 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n

Activists have noted that anyone who criticizes Newsom\u2019s approach is dismissed as resisting change and being a proponent of the status quo. When <\/span>60 Minutes<\/span><\/i> correspondent Cecilia Vega <\/span>presented<\/span><\/a> the governor with some of the words critics used to describe CARE Court \u2014 \u201ccoercive, backward, and harmful,\u201d Newsom responded with a creepy laugh. \u201cThose are talking points that have been on rewind for decades and decades, and I\u2019m frankly exhausted by them,\u201d he responded.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe media is spreading the narrative that disability rights advocates are supporting people \u2018dying with their rights on,\u2019\u201d said Myrick. \u201cI would argue, especially when we talk about the lack of true care and safety in these California bills and involuntary programs, that we are fighting to ensure people LIVE with their rights on.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

ABOUT<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Leah Harris is a disabled activist and journalist who spent portions of their adolescence incarcerated in California for-profit psychiatric institutions and locked facilities. Their journalism has appeared in <\/span>Disability Visibility Project<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Rooted in Rights<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>The Progressive Magazine<\/span><\/a>, and <\/span>Mad in America<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Support Disability Media and Culture<\/b><\/p>\n

DONATE<\/b><\/a>\u00a0to the Disability Visibility Project\u00ae<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Return of the Ugly Laws: In the Name of \u2018Modernization,\u2019 the Newsom Administration Wants to Disappear Unhoused and Disabled People from the Streets, Rebuild the Asylums   Leah Harris\u00a0   … Continue Reading Return of the Ugly Laws: In the Name of \u2018Modernization,\u2019 the Newsom Administration Wants to Disappear Unhoused and Disabled People from the Streets, Rebuild the Asylums<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":494545,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[6701202,1],"tags":[927064,1337,587153035,4512130,168607,587153210,587153091,667669,587152551,44962,587153209,93362026],"class_list":["post-494546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-guest-blog-posts","category-uncategorized","tag-asylums","tag-california","tag-coercion","tag-conservatorship","tag-disability-rights","tag-forced-treatment","tag-houselessness","tag-institutionalization","tag-medical-coercion","tag-mental-illness","tag-newsom","tag-psychiatric-facilities","post-has-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/theo.png?fit=1600%2C900&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4H7t1-24Ey","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/494546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=494546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/494546\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/494545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=494546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=494546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/disabilityvisibilityproject.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=494546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}