The recent expansion of California’s CARE Court reflects good intentions, but it again exposes the gap between legislative design and real-world county implementation.
The California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators represents the county officials who serve individuals with the most serious mental illness, often when no family or support system is available. Our members see firsthand how CARE Court’s promise has not translated into meaningful outcomes for many Californians.
Even before eligibility was expanded, narrow diagnostic criteria, difficulty locating people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and assumptions about clinical outcomes created barriers to success.
While CARE Court is funded and can produce positive results in some cases, failing CARE Court should not be treated as an automatic path to Lanterman–Petris–Short conservatorship. The burden of proof for conservatorship remains high, and many individuals do not succeed in CARE Court for reasons unrelated to their ability to survive safely.
Expanding eligibility without addressing these structural flaws risks repeating the same mistakes at a larger scale. Counties continue to face shortages of treatment slots, housing options, and wrap-around services necessary to stabilize people with severe mental illness.
Legislation should be judged by how it functions in practice, not how it reads on paper. Without realistic standards, adequate resources, and a clear understanding of CARE Court’s limitations, expansion may offer hope — but not the durable solutions that vulnerable Californians and their families urgently need.
Tom Scott is the executive director of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators, representing county professionals who safeguard the property and welfare of vulnerable and unrepresented Californians.
Want to submit a letter to the editor, guest column or opinion piece? Find our guidelines and submission form here.
