Amid California’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit in 2023, state officials battled over funding for youth mental health services. While lawmakers aimed to slash costs, Toby Ewing, director of the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, passionately advocated for Kooth, a U.K.-based company providing digital mental health solutions to California’s youth.
Ewing’s efforts on Kooth’s behalf sparked controversy. Emails and calendars reveal his efforts to maintain the company’s $271 million contract, even as Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators considered cuts.
Ewing, along with three commission members, embarked on a fully-funded trip to London in June, courtesy of Kooth while the budget negotiations were underway. By then, Kooth had adjusted the agenda, replacing a postponed mental health conference with specially curated meetings for the Californian delegation.
Upon their return, Ewing received good news: legislative staff had restored Kooth’s funding.
Ewing’s dedication to Kooth went beyond mere advocacy. He offered his own suggestions for improvement to the app, sharing them with Kooth executives and Assembly and Senate staff.
The financial backing of Kooth’s trip to London for the California commissioners was met with criticism. Some expressed concerns about undue influence, especially given the timing of the trip in relation to the contract negotiations. Kooth had already faced scrutiny over substantial school contracts in Pennsylvania, which employed a similar strategy involving travel and speaking engagements for state officials
While Kooth claims it seeks to connect policymakers with international experts, critics see a pattern of questionable lobbying tactics. Even with the restored funding in California, the relationship between Kooth and california official raises serious questions about transparency and the influence of private companies on public policy. E
The controversy led to further scrutiny, culminating in Ewing being placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. Three commission employees filed whistleblower complaints against Ewing, shortening the travel budget for the trip to at least partly funded by the company
Ewing and his colleagues also faced criticism for their lack of communication and transparency regarding the trip to London.
Ewing’s actions underscore the complex ethical challenges facing public officials in an era where private interests often intersect with public policy decisions.