Smart Voter Your Ballot & Poll Place On Propositions Ballot Measure Analysis Pros & Cons Prop 1A Prop 65 Prop 59 Prop 66 Prop 60 Prop 67 Prop 60A Prop 68 Prop 61 Prop 69 Prop 62 Prop 70 Prop 63 Prop 71 Prop 64 Prop 72 PDF In Depth Prop 1A Prop 65 Prop 59 Prop 66 Prop 60 Prop 67 Prop 60A Prop 68 Prop 61 Prop 69 Prop 62 Prop 70 Prop 63 Prop 71 Prop 64 Prop 72 About Ballot Measures Background How to Evaluate State Bond Debt The Initiative Process Other Absentee Voting Register to Vote

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXPANSION, FUNDING.
TAX ON PERSONAL INCOMES ABOVE $1 MILLION.
Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should an additional tax of 1 percent be imposed on taxpayers’ personal income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for the expansion of mental health services and programs?

THE SITUATION

Counties are the primary providers of mental health care for Californians who lack private coverage for such care, which may include psychiatric counseling, hospitalization and other services. Some counties also arrange other types of assistance such as housing, substance abuse treatment and employment services. Mental health services are currently paid for with a mix of federal, state and local funds.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 63 provides funds to the state and counties to expand and develop programs and services for the mentally ill, including prevention, early intervention and education. It also creates a commission to approve certain county mental health programs and expenditures and imposes a 1 percent tax on taxpayers’ personal income above $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health programs. It prohibits the state from decreasing current funding levels for mental health services.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst projects the following fiscal effects:

• Additional revenues (approximately $800 million by FY 2006-2007 and probably more annually thereafter), with corresponding annual increases in mental health expenditures by the state and counties.
• Unknown state and local savings, as the increase in mental health services decreases the need for other government services. This, together with increased availability of matching federal funds, could amount to as much as the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means that a surcharge on state personal income taxes would be enacted for taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million to .nance an expansion of county mental health programs.

A NO vote means that funding for county mental health programs would continue to depend largely on actions by the Legislature and Governor.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 63 expands mental health care for children and adults using programs proven to be effective while requiring strict financial accountability.
• Prisons are crowded with mentally ill people who might not be there if they had been treated. We should provide care before people end up on the streets or behind bars, freeing our police officers to focus on criminals.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 63 is built on a shaky funding scheme. It will drive away the very taxpayers whose support is needed.
• Proposition 63 mandates funding existing mental health programs at their current levels, regardless of proven effectiveness or efficiency.

For more information:

Supporters: Campaign for Mental Health, (916) 557-1166, www.Yeson63.org

Opponents: Citizens for a Healthy California, (916) 491-1725, www.noon63.com

Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to lwvc@vcwatts.org