Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Behavioral health director warns Prop 1, federal changes shrink local prevention funding; advocates press to preserve youth programs
Summary
Alameda Countys behavioral health director told the Unincorporated Services Committee that state changes under Prop 1 reduce local prevention funding and that opioid-settlement money and capital BCHIP grants offer partial offsets; youth groups urged open RFPs and preservation of prevention funding.
Dr. Karen Bridal, director of Alameda County Behavioral Health, told the Unincorporated Services Committee on Feb. 26 that state-level changes under Proposition 1 and other fiscal shifts have significantly narrowed the countys ability to fund prevention programs.
Bridal said the Mental Health Services Act has transitioned into the Behavioral Health Services Act under Prop 1, and that change moved most prevention funding to the state level. She said that Alameda Countys prior allocation under MHSA (about $206 million in the cited slide) is projected to drop to roughly $127million under the new structure, creating program reductions and a multi-million-dollar shortfall the county must absorb through staffing and other budget actions.
At the same time, Bridal described the countys opioid-settlement proceeds as a sizable new resource: Alameda County is projected to receive about $80 million from settlements over time, with roughly $31.7 million already paid to the county. Of those funds, staff have set aside community-directed mini-grants (a $5.5 million pool) and are deploying capital-focused BCHIP dollars (an estimated $170 million for infrastructure statewide, with a local share) to increase treatment capacity and beds. Bridal said 85% of opioid-settlement dollars must be used for opioid abatement and that state guidelines require local matching dollars and categorical uses.
Community response and prevention concerns: Multiple youth leaders and prevention advocates from SLAM and MyEd and Voice commended the county for improved budget transparency but warned that prevention is cheaper than crisis and urged the county to preserve prevention programming. They asked that any behavioral-health funding opportunities be distributed as open, competitive requests for proposals so community-based organizations and youth-led groups can compete.
Bridal acknowledged the limits placed by new state rules but highlighted implementation pathways: targeted mini-grants, deployment of opioid-settlement funds for community-directed activities and BCHIP capital investments to expand bed capacity and treatment infrastructure. She also said the department is increasing outreach, language-access supports and co-location of services where feasible.
Why it matters: The mix of funding sources and the state-mandated reclassification of prevention vs. early intervention shifts where and how the county can spend behavioral-health dollars. Local advocates said losing prevention funds will affect youth services and community-based programs that operate upstream of crises.
Next steps: Staff said they will continue stakeholder engagement, post behavioral-health plan materials online and coordinate with community partners on mini-grants and competitive procurement when funds allow. Dr. Bridal provided a contact (director@acgov.org) for follow-up.
