There is a bipartisan effort in the state legislature to finally finalize the mental health reform that Gov. Ronald Reagan and legislators began 56 years ago. Then they screwed up the job.

Their failure is a major reason why there are so many homeless people living on the streets of California today.

The 1967 reform was a brilliant idea. It just wasn’t implemented as promised. Now it needs to be updated, changed to address the mental health realities and get more money.

The reforms under Reagan eliminated storage of mentally ill patients often against their will in depressing, often oppressive state hospitals. Everyone was told that patients could be better treated in their local community, close to family and friends.

Great concept, except that neither the state nor local governments have raised enough money for the treatment. Former patients and thousands of patients who should have been patients slept on downtown streets, in city parks or under highways.

The reform also worked against getting treatment for the mentally ill, as it became much more difficult to coerce them into care. In most cases they had to volunteer for it. And many refused to acknowledge or didn’t even know they were sick.

The bipartisan authors of 1967 Conservative Councilman Frank Lanterman (R-La Canada), Liberal Senator Nicholas Petris (D-Oakland), and centrist Senator Alan Short (D-Stockton) were well-meaning. But as usual in Sacramento, legislation was passed and there was virtually no follow-up. Mental health care was dumped in the lap of counties that couldn’t handle it.

I suspected then and still suspect that Reagan’s main motive was to cut state spending. He was quick to close state hospitals. But he had no intention of sending much more state money to counties for local care. The rookie governor battled a budget deficit and even raised taxes.

Many successive governors have also failed to fund local mental health services.

But Governor Gavin Newson wants to change that.

He proposes a bond

issue measure

in the $3 billion to $5 billion range that would create housing and treatment facilities for an additional 10,000 people with behavioral problems. The measure, if approved by the legislature, would enter the state ballot next year.

Newsom also proposes diverting $1 billion annually from the so-called millionaires’ tax to operate the new facilities. That comes from a 2004 ballot initiative designed to help fund local mental health services. It generates about $3.3 billion per year.

Republicans had a better idea than Newsom’s band last year

measuring unit

, which would require interest payments. They proposed spending $10 billion of the then state surplus of nearly $100 billion on facilities that would provide mental health and substance abuse services to the homeless. But the GOP had no influence and now there is an estimated shortfall.

Last year, the legislature passed Newsom’s proposed CARE court, which would allow family members and medical professionals to petition a judge to order an evaluation of a mentally ill or addicted person and suggest a treatment plan. But it won’t force anyone to submit

the

therapy. That would be voluntary.

A coalition of disability and civil rights organizations asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the CARE Court program.

claim to say

it violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The court recently denied the request and the program will launch this fall.

The leading legislative advocate for reforming California’s mental health programs is Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), the new chair of the Senate Health Committee.

She jockeyed Newsom’s CARE Court bill through the legislature and will also handle his bond measure.

But her most important bill this year would make it easier for people in extreme mental distress who need treatment to be held against their will by police, crisis teams and health care providers. The measure, SB 43, has passed through two Senate committees by unanimous vote.

Under current law, people can only be detained involuntarily if they pose a danger to themselves or others, or if they are seriously disabled. But all of that is hard to prove. Eggman’s bill would significantly lower the bar so that the sickest people don’t fall between the cracks and splash on the sidewalks, she says.

The same coalition that fought against the CARE court also opposes SB 43, as it would deprive people of their fundamental rights and freedoms.

I’m tired of people dying on the street with their rights to it, Eggman counters.

Often they don’t even notice that something is wrong with them. If they don’t want treatment, they don’t have to take it. They go back and live off the dumpster. These are people who are victimized, assaulted, beaten up, raped on the street.

It’s not progressive, it’s not compassionate to make people suffer to the extent that we see them on the street. It’s not good for public health. It’s not good for the general population.

Eggman’s aunt Barbara was one of the victims. That was part of my childhood, she recalls.

Her aunt would be held for observation for 72 years

–

hours and then

are

released, never received long-term help. That’s common. After a short detention, she was gang raped and soon died of AIDS.

Eggman’s bill has strong support from the legislature’s two Republican leaders: Senator Brian Jones of Santee and Councilman James Gallagher of Yuba City.

The goal is to stabilize people and eventually make them productive again, says Gallagher. They need shelter and treatment, vocational training, temporary housing instead of just putting someone in a hotel room with no services and expecting them to get better.

What we have been doing for decades has not worked well. We should try something different. It’s been a long time since the state fulfilled a half-century promise.