Newsom threatens CARE Court funds, names 10 “CARE ICU” counties in bid to speed California mental health program
Governor Gavin Newsom threatened to reallocate CARE Court funds on March 2, 2026, targeting ten counties he labeled the “CARE ICU” for failing to meet petition benchmarks as the state pushes to accelerate the mental health program.
Key takeaways
- Ten counties were singled out for low CARE Court petition rates and labeled the “CARE ICU.”
- Benchmark: state used ~6.2 petitions per 100,000 residents to judge county performance and may reallocate funds in the May 2026 budget revision.
- State data show 3,817 petitions filed, 893 approved treatment agreements and 32 court-ordered plans — well below early projections.
- Accountability tools include a public tracker at accountability.ca.gov and publicized “CARE Champions” models.
Main content
Program overview: what CARE Court does and why it matters
CARE Court is a civil program created to help people with severe mental illness — many of whom experience homelessness or substance use — access treatment. Families, first responders or providers may file a petition in local court to ask that a person receive help. Judges can then connect that person to voluntary services or a court-ordered CARE plan. Supporters say it fills gaps for people who decline treatment but pose ongoing danger to themselves or others; opponents raise concerns about civil liberties and implementation challenges. The state piloted CARE Court in select counties in 2023 and expanded statewide by late 2024. (KFIA AM 640 report; press remarks)
State data and the benchmark that triggered the threat
At a March 2 press event, Newsom said the state uses a benchmark of roughly 6.2 petitions per 100,000 residents to judge county performance. Based on statewide data, officials counted 3,817 total petitions since launch. Of those, judges approved 893 treatment agreements and issued 32 court-ordered plans, falling short of projected early-year estimates of 7,000–12,000 qualifying people. More than 4,000 referrals were redirected to other services. Newsom warned counties that do not meet the benchmark could lose or have funds redirected to counties demonstrating stronger implementation, and he reiterated that message forcefully at the press conference. (KFIA AM 640 report; press remarks)
The “CARE ICU” counties named
Newsom singled out 10 counties as the lowest performers: Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Yolo. He said these counties had not met the state’s petition benchmark and declared his office had “run out of patience” on homelessness and behavioral health rollouts. At the press event he said he was prepared to redirect money and insisted local leaders must move faster to enroll people and build capacity, suggesting potential funding shifts in his May budget revision pending legislative approval. (KFIA AM 640 report; press remarks)
County reactions and pushback
Leaders in several named counties quickly pushed back. Officials in Kern, Santa Clara and San Francisco defended their CARE Court progress and argued a single metric does not capture complex local efforts. Orange County said it ranks fifth in petitions and reported 79 participants in housing and services tied to CARE Court, asserting an active local rollout. Santa Clara highlighted recent housing and treatment expansions and criticized the state scorecard as too narrow. San Francisco pointed to lower encampment counts and improved safety metrics, and it noted a recent CARE Court case involving Connor Keith that ended tragically and is under review. The County Behavioral Health Directors Association argued the state metric ignores prevention work that keeps crises from reaching court. (KFIA AM 640 report)
State support, accountability tools and funding notes
Newsom said he wants counties to succeed and paired tough rhetoric with offers of support. The administration launched a public tracker at accountability.ca.gov for CARE Court metrics and other benchmarks. He also highlighted 10 “CARE Champions” — Alameda, Humboldt, Imperial, Marin, Merced, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Sutter and Tuolumne — as models for integration. The state referenced additional funding: $131.8 million in Homekey+ awards, $159 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention funds, and Prop 1 bonds passed in 2024 that provide billions for housing and services. Newsom emphasized that funding alone is insufficient without local implementation. (KFIA AM 640 report; press remarks; accountability.ca.gov)
Critics, legal concerns and political fallout
Critics question whether a single petitions-per-population metric fairly captures county work. Observers pointed out inconsistencies — for example, San Diego County reported strong CARE Court graduations yet was not named a “CARE Champion,” highlighting limits of the state scorecard. The California State Association of Counties said counties are acting within the law while asking for clearer guidance and more resources. Republican lawmakers and some local officials called Newsom’s approach heavy-handed, arguing counties need more funding and operational support rather than threats. The dispute raises legal and political questions about whether the governor can reallocate funding and how the Legislature may respond. (KFIA AM 640 report; press remarks)
Implications for San Diego, California
Economic impact
San Diego County could feel direct effects if the state reallocates CARE-related funds. Though San Diego was not listed among the “CARE ICU” counties, uncertainty in state funding decisions could slow local housing and service projects tied to state grants. Delays or reallocation of Homekey+ or Homeless Housing Assistance funds would affect construction timelines, service provider contracts and jobs tied to shelters and supportive housing.
Political consequences
The dispute tightens scrutiny on local leaders. San Diego officials may face questions from county supervisors and city councils about CARE Court metrics, implementation choices and how the county’s data compares on accountability.ca.gov. State pressure could prompt more visible coordination with state agencies or calls for clearer rules from Sacramento.
Social effects
Residents and frontline workers may feel renewed urgency to increase petitions, referrals and documented outcomes. Families seeking help could see faster connections if the county ramps up outreach, but the debate could also create confusion among people who fear court-ordered treatment. Clear public messaging is important to explain that CARE Court is a civil process aimed at treatment access, not criminal punishment.
Cultural relevance
San Diego’s mix of urban, suburban and border communities emphasizes local control and cross-jurisdiction partnerships. Any Sacramento funding reallocation might spur local leaders to highlight community-based solutions and San Diego-specific programs for mental health, housing and substance use services.
Practical applications for residents
San Diegans should know where to check county progress and find resources. The state’s public tracker at accountability.ca.gov shows local CARE Court metrics. Residents seeking help for family members can contact county behavioral health agencies or local providers about referral options. Providers and nonprofits should review data collection and referral pathways so petitions and alternative service connections are accurately captured and reported. (accountability.ca.gov; KFIA AM 640 report)
Additional reporting details and sources
This story draws on the governor’s March 2 remarks and state data released by his office, plus county responses and public records. Full coverage and the governor’s recorded remarks are available: KFIA AM 640 report, press remarks. County progress can be reviewed at the state tracker: accountability.ca.gov.
