Bryce Moss remembers the moments when his life felt like it was slipping away. A 40-year-old recovering alcoholic living with schizophrenia, PTSD, depression, and ADHD, Moss often found himself in the grip of crises that traditional emergency services were ill-equipped to handle. For him, the turning point came when mental health workers from Lake County’s mobile crisis team stepped in.
The team did more than just stabilize him during a breakdown; they provided a bridge to stability. After Moss left an addiction recovery center in Clearlake Oaks more than a year ago, a substance abuse counselor worked closely with him to secure housing and maintain his sobriety. “They saved my life,” Moss said. “They’re a godsend for people like me.”
But the lifeline that Moss and thousands of other Californians rely on is now under threat. A Newsom plan seeks to end state funding for mobile crisis teams by shifting the financial burden of these essential services from the state government to individual counties. For the state’s most economically distressed regions, this move could signify the difference between a functioning safety net and a total collapse of community-based mental health response.
Buried within Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2026-27 state budget is a proposal to redesignate mobile crisis services as an “optional benefit” under Medi-Cal. Even as this may seem like a technical accounting change, the practical result would be a significant funding gap. Currently, the state covers the non-federal share of these costs; under the new plan, counties would be responsible for that match, potentially costing local governments as much as $130 million annually across the state, according to the California Behavioral Health Directors Association.
The Mechanics of a Funding Cliff
The current infrastructure of California’s mobile crisis response was built on a surge of pandemic-era support. Under the American Rescue Plan Act, the federal government increased its Medicaid reimbursement match for mobile crisis services to 85%. To qualify for this enhanced rate, teams had to operate 24/7, employ trauma-informed care, and maintain strong links to community providers.
In 2022, California leveraged this federal windfall by designating mobile crisis services as a mandatory benefit under Medi-Cal, meaning the state was obligated to cover the remaining 15%. However, that enhanced 85% federal match is set to expire on March 31, 2027.
As the federal share drops back toward 50%, the state’s financial obligation will spike. H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, stated that extending state funding beyond next March would cost the general fund an estimated $170 million per year. Palmer noted that the state is currently facing a budget shortfall of nearly $3 billion for the coming year and a projected gap of roughly $22 billion the following year, making the shift to an optional benefit the most “sustainable path.”
A ‘Patchwork’ of Care
Mental health administrators warn that this sustainability comes at a human cost. Michelle Doty Cabrera, executive director of the California Behavioral Health Directors Association, warns that the move will create a system of “haves and have-nots.” While wealthy counties may be able to absorb the costs, distressed counties may be forced to shutter their programs entirely.
“They’re going to have to shut down all or part of their mobile crisis response,” Doty Cabrera said. “People are really devastated by that possibility as they’ve seen the real benefit… diverting people away from law enforcement involvement, away from hospital emergency departments, and away from more expensive and traumatic, frankly, interventions.”
| Region/Entity | Current Funding Model | Proposed Change/Risk | Potential Local Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lake County | State-funded non-federal match | Shift to optional benefit | $900,000 – $1.2 million annually |
| Sonoma County | Mixed (Medi-Cal & Measure O) | Reduced Medi-Cal reimbursements | Variable (TBD by health officials) |
| Statewide | Mandatory Medi-Cal benefit | Optional Medi-Cal benefit | Up to $130 million total county burden |
The High Stakes in Lake County
In the North Bay, Lake County serves as a stark example of what is at risk. The county’s nine-member mobile crisis team, which has operated since 2023, acts as a critical hub for a population struggling with high rates of poverty and substance utilize disorders. The team operates out of a dispatch center in Clearlake Oaks and embeds a crisis worker directly within the Lakeport Police Station.
For Lake County, the math is devastating. During the 2024-25 fiscal year, the team billed Medi-Cal for 418 crisis encounters. If the county were forced to pay the non-federal share, it would necessitate to find approximately $900,000 to $1.2 million annually just to retain the doors open. Elise Jones, director of Lake County Behavioral Health Services, noted that this amount represents up to 5% of the county’s total annual spending on mental health services.
The impact extends beyond the clinic and into the streets. April Giambra, Lake County’s clinical deputy director for mental health and substance use services, estimates that the team successfully prevents 90% of crises from escalating to hospitalization or incarceration.
Lakeport Police Chief Dale Stoebe views the program as a vital tool for officer safety and community wellness. With a police force struggling with retention and an influx of inexperienced officers, Stoebe argues that relying solely on law enforcement to handle psychiatric emergencies is a “recipe for disaster.”
“Fifteen, 20 years ago, we could navigate that because we had officers that had 10, 15, 20 years of experience,” Stoebe said. “It’s a recipe for disaster when you now are forcing cops to be the only ones responding to people in crisis, and they have two, three, four years of experience.”
The value of this specialized approach is best illustrated by the “boots on the ground,” such as Bonnie O’Donnell, a crisis worker with 14 years of substance use counseling experience. O’Donnell describes scenes where her presence prevented violence. In one instance, she and a partner were able to talk a man holding a knife into dropping the weapon and voluntarily entering a vehicle for transport to a hospital, even as sheriff’s deputies had their guns drawn.
Regional Divergence in Sonoma County
The crisis is unfolding differently in neighboring Sonoma County, where a more diversified funding stream provides some insulation. While the county’s mobile crisis program for unincorporated areas relies on Medi-Cal reimbursements and would perceive the impact of the state’s pullback, other teams are funded through Measure O—a quarter-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2020.
However, the financial climate remains precarious. Nolan Sullivan, Sonoma County’s health services director, acknowledged that the county will “take a hit,” though the exact magnitude remains unclear. In Santa Rosa, the InRESPONSE team has already navigated significant funding challenges as the city manages its own post-pandemic financial crisis.
This precariousness stands in contrast to recent statewide investments. The Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program, funded by the 2024 voter-approved Proposition 1, recently invested $202 million into 78 jurisdictions to build out 24/7 mobile crisis infrastructure. Advocates argue that shifting the funding burden to counties now would effectively jeopardize those millions of dollars in initial investment.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical or legal advice. If you or a loved one are experiencing a mental health crisis, please seek immediate professional aid.
Crisis Resources:
• Call or text 988 to connect with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
• Call 911 for immediate medical emergencies or imminent danger.
The future of these programs now rests with the California Legislature, which must decide whether to adopt the governor’s proposed budget and the redesignation of these services. The next major checkpoint will be the legislative budget hearings, where county administrators and health advocates are expected to testify on the potential for widespread service closures.
We invite you to share your thoughts on community-based crisis response in the comments below or share this story with your community.
