ABSTRACT
This article reviews the legislative process that resulted in the most significant reform of California's public mental health system in nearly 25 years. The reform, termed "Program Realignment," decentralized administrative and fiscal control of the mental health system from the state to the county level. The system prior to Program Realignment is discussed here to reveal an already diverse and decentralized county mental health system, fiscal distress, and general dissatisfaction with the system. From these conditions, the objectives of the relevant political actors arose. By tracing the policy development process of Program Realignment, several independent variables are revealed that help explain how and why this legislation came into being and allow generalization of this case to other states' experiences. These independent variables are an urgent need for action within a limited timeframe, a preexisting knowledge base and well-developed policy networks, a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, and the presence of strong leadership. Preliminary evidence suggests that consolidation of fiscal and programmatic authority at the local level has reduced fragmentation of services and increased fiscal flexibility. However, there is concern that the quality of care offered by the state's 59 local mental health programs will become increasingly disparate and that increased financial flexibility may not be used to improve services for clients but to save money for local governments. Lessons from California's experience can alert other states to the pros and cons of this policy approach to providing mental health services and inform policymakers in other states of the steps involved in bringing about such a policy change.
