California just raised the pressure
Mental health policy rarely feels like front-page drama, but this one did. In early March 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom warned that some California counties could lose or see state funds redirected over CARE Court performance. The move instantly turned a slow policy rollout into a statewide accountability fight.
For readers outside California, this matters because the issue touches homelessness, treatment access, and how states measure results. It also shows how quickly funding debates can reshape local programs. When money is tied to performance, every county suddenly has something to prove.
What CARE Court actually does
CARE Court is not a general homelessness program. California created it to help adults with severe untreated mental illness, especially schizophrenia spectrum and similar psychotic disorders, get treatment and housing support through a civil court process. State officials say it is meant to step in before jail, conservatorship, or deeper crisis.
A petition can be filed by the person, a family member, a first responder, or a mental health professional. The process is handled in civil court, not criminal court. Participants are supposed to receive support rather than punishment.
The state is using a scorecard
Newsom’s team split counties into two groups with very different labels. Ten counties were praised as “CARE Champions,” while ten others were placed in the “CARE ICU,” short for Improvement and Coordination Unit. That second label signaled extra state oversight and a public warning shot.
The state said its comparison used 2025 petition rates on a per-capita basis. That matters because 2025 was the first full calendar year when all 58 counties were required to participate. In other words, Sacramento wanted one common yardstick for everyone.
These counties were called out
The underperforming list included Santa Clara, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, Yolo, Monterey, Fresno, and San Francisco counties. That lineup covers some of California’s biggest population centers and some places with major homelessness and behavioral health pressures. It also means millions of residents live in counties now facing sharper state scrutiny.
One big correction matters here. San Diego was not on the official underperforming list released by the governor’s office. Some early summaries muddied that point, but the official list names Orange, not San Diego.
Other counties got praised
At the same event, Newsom’s office named ten “CARE Champions.” Those counties were Humboldt, Tuolumne, Marin, Napa, Merced, Sutter, Alameda, Santa Barbara, San Mateo, and Imperial. The contrast was sharp: some counties were being celebrated while others were being put on notice.
That split gave the announcement extra political punch. It was not just about failure. It was also about showing that the state believes some counties are proving the model can work better than others.
Little-known fact: CARE Court is a civil court process, not a criminal one, and California says every participant is provided a lawyer during the process.
Why Newsom is frustrated
The governor’s message was simple: too many counties are moving too slowly. CalMatters reported that Newsom threatened to redirect funding away from counties he believes “haven’t gotten it done.” He framed it as a moral and legal obligation, not a paperwork issue.
That tone matters because CARE Court has been one of his signature mental health efforts since 2023. When a governor publicly blasts county performance, local leaders know budget season could get tougher. This became about political accountability as much as program design.
Little-known fact: The March 2 event highlighted Alameda County’s Regis Village campus, where officials said 44 beds are prioritized for people in CARE Court.
The money angle is real
The March 2 announcement included $291 million for services and housing: about $131.8 million in Homekey+ awards and roughly $159.3 million in HHAP Round 6 regional awards, according to the governor’s release and county award listings. Newsom also suggested future funding could be shaped by county performance.
That is why counties paid attention fast. Even if exact county-by-county cuts were not announced that day, the message was clear. Poor results could carry budget consequences in the May revision and beyond.
Little-known fact: Under California’s public self-help guidance, CARE eligibility includes adults 18 and older with qualifying psychotic disorders, and participants can choose a voluntary supporter to help them navigate decisions.
The program is bigger than courtrooms
CARE Court is built around petitions, but the state says many people are being helped outside the courtroom, too. As of the March 2 announcement, officials said more than 3,800 petitions had been submitted, and more than 4,000 diversions had connected people to services without needing the full court process. That suggests the program is also being used as a doorway into other care options.
The state also said more than 1,851 people had continued through the CARE Court process. Those numbers show activity, but they do not end the debate over how well the system is working. That is where the next fight begins.
Critics say one number is not enough
Not everyone agrees with Sacramento’s scorecard. CalMatters noted that measuring success by petitions per capita can miss other important signs, such as agreements reached, dismissed cases, or actual program graduations. A county could file more petitions without necessarily delivering better outcomes.
That criticism matters for a broad U.S. audience too. Across America, public programs often get judged by the easiest number to track. The harder question is whether people are actually getting stable treatment, housing, and follow-through.
Some counties pushed back fast
Orange County quickly disputed Newsom’s claim that it was lagging. Other county officials also argued that low petition volume alone should not define success, especially for a program with narrow eligibility rules. Their response was basically this: fewer petitions do not always mean weaker care.
That pushback shows how tricky this issue is on the ground. Counties say building trust, finding housing, and coordinating treatment takes time. State leaders, meanwhile, want faster, visible results.
CARE Court serves a narrow group
One reason the debate is so intense is that CARE Court was never designed to cover every person experiencing homelessness. California’s own guidance says the process is for adults with specific severe psychotic disorders who meet strict criteria. That makes the program important, but also limited.
So when readers hear claims that CARE Court will solve a huge homelessness crisis, it helps to slow down. It can be one tool in a larger system, not the whole system. That distinction is a big part of why counties and advocates keep arguing over expectations.
Why this reaches beyond California
California often acts like a policy test lab for the rest of the country. If CARE Court shows strong results, other states may study the model closely. If it struggles, the rollout could become a cautionary tale about promising too much too soon.
This is why the county fight feels bigger than local politics. The story touches mental health, housing shortages, public safety, and state oversight all at once. Those are not California-only problems.
A sweeping fraud crackdown is putting thousands of California borrowers back in the spotlight. Check out why the SBA suspended 111,620 borrowers amid $8.6 billion in suspected pandemic-loan fraud.
What to watch next
The next big moment is the budget process. Newsom signaled that counties showing weak progress could face tougher funding decisions as the state moves deeper into 2026. That means local officials now have a strong reason to improve numbers or defend their approach more clearly.
Readers should also watch for better county-level data. Petitions tell one part of the story, but outcomes matter more. The real question is whether more people are getting treatment, housing, and a safer path forward.
A new federal audit is raising fresh questions about oversight in a system many vulnerable New Yorkers rely on. Check out why problems were flagged in New York Medicaid rides.
Read More From This Brand: