Guest Commentary written by

Tom Scott

Tom Scott is executive director of the California State Association of Public
Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators

Re: How Gavin Newsom’s CARE Court lost its teeth in the California Legislature

The recent CalMatters article on how California’s CARE Court evolved in the Legislature
provides in-depth coverage of the challenges counties face implementing constrained policy.

The California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators
(CA PA|PG|PC) represents county officials who serve individuals with the most serious mental
illness, often when no family or support system is available. Our members see the gap between
CARE Court’s intent and real-world application.

Narrow diagnostic criteria, difficulty locating people experiencing unsheltered homelessness,
and assumptions about outcomes all present obstacles.

CARE Court is funded and can produce positive results in some cases. But failing CARE Court should not be treated as an automatic path to LPS conservatorship: the burden of proof remains high, and many people may not succeed in CARE Court for reasons unrelated to their ability to survive safely.

Legislation must be judged by how it functions in practice for Californians statewide.