Districts left on their own to provide mental health services, court rules
CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance plans to appeal
Published: March 22, 2011
CSBA and its Education Legal Alliance plan to seek review of a recent court ruling that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did have the authority to veto funding and suspend a mandate for counties to provide mental health services to students.
The elimination of funding in the 2010-11 budget for mental health services under Assembly Bill 3632, originally enacted in 1984, relieves counties of their responsibility and leaves it up to local educational agencies and special education local planning areas to care for the mental health needs of their students—largely at the expense of shrinking general funds.
“This is truly a sad day for California’s students and school districts,” said Alliance Director Richard Hamilton. “The Legislature rejected the governor’s proposal to eliminate funding for county-provided AB 3632 services, but the governor ultimately won by exercising his line-item veto power, leaving these vital services subject to the annual budget melodrama.”
CSBA and the Alliance, along with a number of school districts, had asked the court to find that the governor did not have the authority to suspend services the Legislature had mandated.
In effect for more than 25 years, AB 3632 outlines part of California’s plan to implement the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The law splits the responsibility for providing mental health services to seriously emotionally disturbed students between local school districts and county mental health offices, which have the appropriate professionals and access to the needed treatment facilities, including residential care.
Schwarzenegger suspended the counties’ responsibilities under AB 3632, thereby reducing the state’s obligation to counties by $133 million, as part of the 2010-11 budget package he signed into law late last year.
“The governor’s suspension of AB 3632 and veto of funding has created chaos in the delivery of vital mental health services to the most needy of students, ultimately leaving the already fiscally burdened LEAs as the provider of last resort under IDEA,” said Hamilton. Furthermore, it may well be determined in the future that despite the governor’s suspension, the ultimate obligation for these responsibilities will be with the state Department of Mental Health, not school districts.”
However, most LEAs and SELPAs don’t have the professionals or access to treatment facilities that county mental health departments do. Counties also have the ability to bill Medi-Cal for the services, which LEAs cannot do. In the meantime, many LEAs and SELPAs are contracting with county mental health agencies, paying them to continue serving students at district expense.
The court did acknowledge in its decision that choosing which needy groups in the state will not be funded may be “devastating” to the children involved, but wrote that “this difficult decision, however, is left to the Legislature and the Governor, not the courts.”
Hamilton said CSBA and the Alliance would seek review of the ruling, issued Feb. 25 by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, by the state Supreme Court. If review is granted, the appeal court’s decision would be set aside.
“Hopefully the Supreme Court will issue a new ruling restoring the obligations under AB 3632 and funding to support them,” Hamilton said.