Wednesday, December 29 -THIS newspaper's editorial ("Making juveniles Prop. 63 target a good idea,' Nov. 23) very appropriately called for using Proposition 63 funds to establish a juvenile mental health court in Pasadena. What better use of these new funds could there possibly be than to give our troubled teens a second chance before shipping them off to the California Youth Authority?
In Pasadena, as throughout the state, a steadily increasing number of teenagers are arrested and brought before juvenile court each year. A significant portion of these teens are in trouble with the law because of an addiction or mental illness that motivates their illegal behavior.
For instance, a teenager may break into a neighbor's house in search of money to support a habit, or they may assault an acquaintance out of rage that flows from an underlying depression. Both can be felony offenses, which can easily lead to incarceration in the CYA.
Once there, time will be served but no remedy offered for the addiction or mental illness. Upon discharge, the teenager is more hardened than ever and likely to show up in court again this time with a record. He or she may now be well on their way toward a life of alienation and criminality. This is tragic in terms of the young lives lost, and also costly for the community that funds the criminal-justice system.
What can be done? A first-of-its-kind juvenile mental health court in Eastlake is demonstrating that there is an alternative. When a teenager is brought before this court the judge has a third option beyond incarceration and dismissal.
They can offer treatment for the underlying causes of the criminal behavior, either drug addiction programs or psychological care, as an alternative to the CYA.
Treatment compliance is monitored and the expected outcome must be attained, or the youth will again face charges.
Initial results are promising, in that many teens have avoided incarceration, had their addiction or mental health needs addressed, and have "straightened out.' The benefit in personal terms of young lives reclaimed far outweighs even the substantial financial benefit resulting from fewer incarcerations.
However, the challenge is to find ways to fund effective addiction and mental-health services for court referrals.
1
As the editorial noted, Proposition 63, more formally known as the Mental Health Services Act, uses a 1 percent tax on incomes over $1 million to generate over $800 million per year for needed mental-health services.
Why did this proposition pass even as many others were rejected by the voters? Because Californians want to see some of our most vulnerable citizens, those struggling with debilitating mental illness, well cared for a truly laudable goal.
This certainly would include teenagers facing incarceration because of their struggles with addiction and/or mental illness.
However, now comes the hard part. Who will decide how to spend these new monies? As with everything governmental, there is a complex series of formulas and policies that will determine how much funding goes to each county.
Two entities will be primarily charged with overseeing distribution. The first is a newly created Citizen's Oversight and Accountability Commission. The second is the State Department of Mental Health. The Department will make the actual allocations, after local hearings and review by the Accountability Commission. Not surprisingly, counties and organizations are already lining up with proposals for the expected new funds.
Now is the time, therefore, for Pasadena's civic and mental-health leaders to draft a juvenile mental health court proposal. Thankfully, Pasadena has both a mayor and a police chief who want to see our teens' mental health needs met. Both Mayor Bill Bogaard and Chief Bernard Melekian have expressed interest in establishing a juvenile mental health court in Pasadena, and are ready to work toward that end.
Such a court could be held in the Superior Court building on Walnut Street where the current Juvenile Court is located, but would have the option of referring teens in need to treatment rather than incarceration. The court would play a critical role in turning around young lives that are heading the wrong direction benefiting not only the teen but the entire community.
Not only so; in the long run, cost savings would be realized from reductions in CYA incarceration. Program evaluation would be built into the proposal to ensure effectiveness and accountability, with actual outcomes and costs carefully tracked.
The passage of Proposition 63 has provided a unique and wonderful opportunity for helping Californians who struggle with debilitating mental illness. Let us demonstrate that Pasadena has a heart for our troubled youth and seek funding for California's second juvenile mental health court. Call it the Court of Second Chances.
Tim Kelly is an associate professor of psychology at the Fuller Graduate School of Psychology in Pasadena, and served as commissioner for Virginia's Department of Mental Health from 1994-1997.
2