Senators Press State, Counties on Early CARE Court Results as Families Describe Gaps in Housing and Services

A joint California State Senate Judiciary and Health committee hearing at the Orange County Superior Court on the implementation of the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court focused Tuesday on what the first year of the program has achieved and where it is falling short.

Senators and witnesses stressed that CARE Court was designed to connect people with schizophrenia-spectrum and similar psychotic disorders to housing, behavioral health professionals and coordinated services. "Care Court…provides stability, provides behavioral health professional support, and also, provides for housing," said Senator Umberg, one of the hearing's chairs, summarizing the policy's original goals.

State health officials told the committees that early indicators show both progress and important gaps. Stephanie Welch, deputy secretary for behavioral health, said that as of Sept. 30 there were 2,873 petitions and that the state is also tracking more than 3,000 diversions into programming without court involvement. Ivan Bhardwaj of the Department of Health Care Services said the department has deployed $57 million in start-up funds, provided training to more than 3,000 people and built new data systems; he added that independent evaluations are due by Dec. 31, 2026 and Dec. 31, 2028.

But lawmakers and family advocates pushed officials on data limits. Senator Menjivar and others pressed for more detail about why petitions are dismissed and how voluntary ("elective") participants are tracked. Bhardwaj said recent bills (including SB 1400 and SB 27) expand data collection and that the next annual report — expected in mid‑2026 — should include more of the missing breakdowns.

Family petitioners and advocacy groups gave the hearing its most personal moments. Anita Fisher, who described decades of caregiving for an adult son with schizophrenia, urged stronger crisis care and a statutory backstop "if the person fails to engage in the care court process or is unable to sustain their engagement" so that clinical evaluations and involuntary pathways can be used when someone remains acutely and gravely disabled. "I still want to believe that we can make the CARE Act serve those living with serious mental illness," Fisher said.

NAMI California's Nancy Eldred told senators families remain hopeful but frustrated by dismissals tied to unclear eligibility and documentation; she urged clearer communications and more accessible help for petitioners so families do not lose faith in the process.

County implementers and clinicians described wide variation in how CARE Court operates locally. Alameda County's behavioral health director, Dr. Karen Tribble, said her county built court self‑help centers, outreach and a coordinated petitioner pathway that helped file a large share of valid petitions; Riverside County reported 224 petitions, eight graduations and an 82‑day average from petition to care agreement. Dr. Aaron Meyer of UC San Diego said the report shows housing gains (permanent housing rose from 46% to 56% for participants) but noted that many dismissed petitions have unknown outcomes and called for outcome tracking for those who meet a prima facie showing.

Judges and attorneys who run care dockets urged patience and refinements rather than wholesale change. Judge Scott Herron said the court process is working when teams invest time to build trust with participants; Charles Bruce, deputy city attorney in San Francisco, and Desiree Sanders, supervising deputy public defender in San Diego, recommended statutory fixes to streamline conversions from agreements to plans in particular circumstances, ease procedural burdens for petitioner types and consider narrowly tailored mechanisms to address persistent medication refusal when clinically indicated.

Panelists repeatedly flagged housing as the bottleneck. Counties said CARE Court can prioritize people for boarding care or supportive housing, but permanent supportive housing remains scarce and some placements offered are not clinically appropriate. Multiple witnesses warned that federal funding uncertainties could further strain county capacity.

Senators closed the hearing urging continued oversight and better data. They noted that SB 27 and SB 1400 change reporting and eligibility and that the next substantial data set is expected in 2026, which will inform future legislative fixes. No formal votes or statutory changes were made at the hearing; senators said they would continue working with counties, the Judicial Council and family advocates to narrow the gaps raised in testimony.

Next steps: officials committed to expanded data reporting in the next annual update, the Judicial Council will continue assembling court inputs, and the committees said they will follow up on specific issues — including dismissals, elective-client tracking and housing prioritization — in subsequent oversight meetings.