Proponents counted CARE Court as a game-changer, but the state’s costly new experiment has changed almost nothing.
Nearly two years after its September 2022 launch, California’s flagship mental‑health intervention—CARE Court—has failed to live up to its $9.3 million cost. Backed by Governor Gavin Newsom and authored in part by state Senator Tom Umberg (CA SD-34), the program was pitched as a solution to chronic homelessness for people with schizophrenia. But since the program’s launch in October 2023, after sinking nearly eight figures of taxpayer money on the initiative locally, Orange County has seen only one mandated CARE plan, another dozen voluntary agreements, and a single graduate from the program.
That’s it.
It’s a failure so staggering that it inevitably raises urgent questions about who is responsible for the program and whether or not it was ever designed to succeed. It’s not just about Newsom and Umberg—although they are indeed the program’s progenitors—but it’s also with the nonprofit executives and policy architects who enabled this costly misadventure.
Governor Newsom initially heralded CARE Court and SB-1338 as part of a “paradigm shift” to help people before they land in jails or hospitals, promising accountability and treatment for those with psychotic disorders. Beyond backing CARE Court, Sen. Umberg also pushed companion bills to federal student scholarships tied to service in the courts. In June 2025, Umberg claimed the initiative is, despite its performance, “headed in the right direction.”
Umberg also thinks that you, the taxpayer, were wrong to ever think of it as a “silver bullet.”
“I never thought it was going to be the silver bullet,” Umberg said. “I did think it was going to change the paradigm in that we were going to focus on those with schizophrenia and we were going to put somebody in charge… There are so many different government initiatives with no one in charge. In Orange County, we have a judge that is in charge.”
The judge in question is Orange County Superior Court Judge Ebrahim Baytieh, a controversial figure who was fired from the District Attorney’s office in 2022 for “outrageous government conduct,” according to a statement from Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.
“I fired Baytieh after he lied to the Department of Justice during their investigation into the prior administration’s use of jailhouse informants in violation of defendants’ constitutional rights and it was made abundantly clear that he was untrustworthy as a prosecutor,” said Spitzer.
But what is a start—silver bullet or otherwise—with only one participant? With hundreds eligible—estimates ranging from 900 to 1,500 in Orange County alone—this program isn’t a fluke. It’s a disaster.
Furthermore, folks should be forgiven for thinking CARE Court would make a tangible difference when its own nonprofit partners—like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)—called it “an absolute game-changer.” That quote comes from NAMI California Executive Director Jessica Cruz, who publicly thanked Gov. Newsom and the legislature for moving CARE Court forward, asserting taxpayers it would “allow us the ability to better assist individuals in need of help throughout California.”
So which is it? CARE’s proponents want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too. Either CARE is indeed a “game-changer” (in which case, we can expect game-changing results), or it isn’t (in which case, it shouldn’t be costing taxpayers millions).
“CARE Court is an amazing opportunity for these individuals who maybe don’t have an advocate, or can’t advocate for themselves,” said San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 member Jerry May.
May’s union is part of California Professional Firefighters, an organization which has given over $35,000 to Umberg’s Senatorial campaign.
Clearly, Umberg continues to push on messages of optimism. Rather, he and every legislator who voted “yes” on SB-1338 should have to answer why the program fell so short. That’s what matters now: if Umberg and his allies truly believed he had a meaningful fix for homelessness and untreated psychosis, why has the program not been more successful? That same scrutiny to the nonprofit and union leaders engaged in visibly championing CARE’s rollout.
Unfortunately, that is not where the controversy around CARE ends. Orange County Healthcare Agency Director Veronica Kelley, tasked with CARE’s implementation, admits the program has forced her to cut funding from “other programs that do great work” just to make CARE Court viable. She likens the system to the infamous Winchester Mystery House: “It is a structure that was okay, but then it just started adding hallways to nowhere and basements that are on top of the building. That’s what our system looks like.”
“The unfortunate part is I have to do CARE,” Kelley said. “But there are a lot of other programs that do great work that I have to cut because I have to do CARE.”
Perhaps that’s what is most disappointing about CARE Court. Beyond the dreadful fact millions have been poured into a program that doesn’t reach those it was designed to help, it’s also siphoning resources away from proven, functioning services. It was passed with fanfare and political grandstanding—fast‑tracked by Democrats and, evidently, without meaningful oversight.
“Concerningly, there is no evidence that CARE Court will work. Studies show that adding a court order to high-quality outpatient care does not improve the effectiveness of treatment. And a court order will not magically conjure desperately needed affordable housing and services into existence,” said ACLU Senior Policy Analyst Eve Garrow.
For context, those remarks come from 2023. Now, nearly two years later, Garrow must feel vindicated as her skepticism was eerily, entirely, and unfortunately all too accurate.
