California's CARE Court Failure: When Good Intentions Abandon the Most Vulnerable

The Promise Versus The Reality

When Governor Gavin Newsom introduced CARE Court in 2022, it was presented as a groundbreaking solution to California’s dual crises of homelessness and untreated serious mental illness. The program promised to bring people off the streets by providing court-ordered treatment plans and support services. More than two years into implementation, the devastating truth has emerged: CARE Court is failing spectacularly in its core mission to help homeless Californians.

The data tells a heartbreaking story. Of the 2,362 CARE Court petitions filed across 21 counties that provided data, fewer than one-third were for people who were actually homeless. Even more alarming, when asked how many people were housed through CARE Court, the most successful counties reported only a few dozen placements. This represents a catastrophic failure of a program specifically designed to address homelessness among those with serious mental health conditions.

Jennifer Farrell’s Heartbreaking Testimony

The human cost of this failure is embodied in stories like that of Jennifer Farrell, who filed a CARE Court petition in Alameda County for her brother struggling with schizophrenia and meth use. Her testimony should serve as a wake-up call to every Californian: “We’re coming up on a year (since he enrolled in CARE Court). And we are nowhere … we’re probably in the same place we were when I filed. And maybe even worse off.”

This isn’t just statistical failure—it’s human suffering compounded by broken promises. Families who turned to CARE Court as a lifeline now find themselves watching their loved ones deteriorate further, despite government assurances of help. The program that promised comprehensive support has delivered little beyond paperwork and disappointment.

The Systemic Failure Exposed

The investigation by CalMatters reveals a system fundamentally misaligned with its stated purpose. If fewer than one-third of participants are homeless in a program designed specifically for homeless individuals with serious mental illness, something has gone terribly wrong in both implementation and targeting. This suggests either catastrophic misdiagnosis of the problem or bureaucratic mission creep that has diverted resources from those most in need.

What makes this failure particularly galling is that it occurs against the backdrop of California’s worsening homelessness crisis. Communities across the state are grappling with visible suffering on their streets, yet a program specifically designed to address this crisis cannot even properly identify or serve its intended population. The disconnect between political promises and practical reality has never been more stark.

A Moral Catastrophe of Priorities

This is more than a policy failure—it represents a profound moral crisis in how we treat our most vulnerable citizens. When a government program designed to help homeless individuals with serious mental illnesses instead becomes another layer of bureaucracy that fails to deliver housing or meaningful support, we must question our fundamental priorities as a society.

The very concept of CARE Court was predicated on the compassionate conservative principle that sometimes intervention is necessary to help those who cannot help themselves. This principle deserves defense, but only when implemented effectively. What we’re witnessing instead is the worst of both worlds: coercive government power without corresponding responsibility for results.

The Constitutional and Humanitarian Dimensions

From a constitutional perspective, programs like CARE Court walk a delicate line between individual liberty and state responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. When such programs fail to deliver promised benefits while exercising state authority over individuals, they risk violating the social contract itself. The government’s power to intervene in citizens’ lives must be balanced by an unwavering commitment to actually improve those lives.

The humanitarian crisis exposed by CARE Court’s failures should alarm every defender of human dignity. We’re witnessing human beings with serious illnesses being processed through a system that cannot provide the most basic necessity: stable housing. Without housing, recovery from mental illness and substance abuse becomes nearly impossible, creating a vicious cycle of suffering and institutional failure.

The Need for Immediate Course Correction

California must undertake immediate, transparent evaluation of why CARE Court has failed to serve its intended population. This requires asking difficult questions: Why are so many non-homeless individuals entering the program? What bureaucratic barriers prevent homeless individuals from accessing CARE Court? Why has housing—the most critical need—proven so elusive?

The solution cannot simply be more funding for a broken system. We need fundamental redesign that prioritizes housing first, eliminates bureaucratic obstacles, and ensures that every component of the program serves the clear goal of stabilizing homeless individuals with serious mental illness. This means partnering with community organizations that understand local needs, streamlining court processes, and guaranteeing that housing resources are available when courts issue treatment orders.

Beyond Bureaucracy: Toward Human-Centered Solutions

The failure of CARE Court demonstrates the limitations of top-down solutions to complex human problems. Real progress requires moving beyond bureaucratic checkboxes and embracing human-centered approaches that recognize the individuality of each person’s struggle with homelessness and mental illness.

We must also acknowledge that no court program can succeed without adequate housing supply and mental health treatment capacity. California’s broader failures in these areas inevitably undermine targeted interventions like CARE Court. Solving homelessness requires addressing the root causes, not just creating new governmental processes that operate within broken systems.

A Call for Accountability and Compassion

Ultimately, the CARE Court story is one of accountability—or the lack thereof. When government programs fail to deliver on their core promises, particularly to society’s most vulnerable, we must demand accountability from those who designed and implemented them. This isn’t about partisan politics; it’s about basic competence and human decency.

The individuals suffering on California’s streets deserve more than broken promises and bureaucratic failure. They deserve a system that actually works, that provides housing and treatment with dignity and effectiveness. Until we achieve this, programs like CARE Court will remain monuments to good intentions undermined by poor execution, and the human cost will continue to mount on our streets and in our communities.