The Californian Youth Behavioral Health Crisis: A Bipartisan Policy Solution Is Overdue
Srinika Kanneganti
Behavioral health is defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Protection as “a state of mental, emotional, and social well-being or behaviors and actions that affect wellness” (US Centers for Disease Control and Protection). Similarly, the American Medical Association refers to behavioral health as “mental health and substance use disorders, life stressors and crises, and stress-related physical symptoms” (American Medical Association). Behavioral health issues span far and wide, including substance abuse, homelessness, anxiety, depression, and numerous other concerns associated with physical and mental health.
Behavioral health is a serious issue across the US, but especially in California, where peer pressure, intense competition, and a lack of support from school administration has created immense stress, anxiety, and suffering for students, not to mention the wealth of personal and family issues they may be dealing with behind closed doors. Fortunately, California has made the behavioral health of its constituents a priority, as evident in the 2025 Behavioral Health Services Act, which outlines the funding allocated by the state to behavioral health services and explains exactly which services will be provided with said funding.
Before one can understand the need for a bipartisan policy solution to address the need for behavioral health services statewide, one must first understand why behavioral health is important to all, and especially relevant to policymakers. Thinking through an economic lens, the economy cannot survive without the workforce, which cannot survive if today’s youth—who are tomorrow’s industry professionals—lack sound behavioral health, making behavioral health a priority for policymakers with economic priorities. Similarly, individuals with better behavioral health make for better homeowners, thus making behavioral health a priority for policymakers concerned with housing and their constituents who are homeowners. I witnessed the strong relationship between behavioral health and homeownership with my own eyes; last year, an individual diagnosed with bipolar disorder in my neighborhood abused substances due to a lack of sufficient behavioral health care, and in his drunk, intoxicated state, he roamed the neighborhood streets, using an empty alcohol bottle to smash the car mirrors of dozens of my neighbors. Furthermore, one’s mental health affects their physical health and vice versa, and since both mental and physical health fall under the larger umbrella of behavioral health, policymakers interested in the health of their constituents must prioritize expanding behavioral health legislation. Finally, marginalized communities and minority groups are often disproportionately affected by behavioral health issues, establishing behavioral health as a priority for policymakers passionate about bridging societal gaps and supporting underrepresented communities.
While Californian behavioral health legislation—both proposed and officially approved—already exists, the vast majority of this legislation is associated with Democratic representatives. From California State Assembly bills, to California State Senate bills, and even including California State Assembly concurrent resolutions, practically all of the efforts to expand behavioral health have been made by Democratic elected officials. Assembly Bill 375 (proposed by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen), Assembly Bill 673 (proposed by Assemblymember Corey A. Jackson), Assembly Bill 1159 (proposed by Assemblymember Dawn Addis), Assembly Bill 1540 (proposed by Assemblymember Mark González), Assembly Bill 1579 (proposed by Assemblymember James C. Ramos), Assembly Bill 1581 (proposed by Assemblymember James C. Ramos), Assembly Bill 1586 (proposed by Assemblymember James C. Ramos), Assembly Bill 1626 (proposed by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel), Assembly Bill 1659 (proposed by Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom), Assembly Bill 1665 (proposed by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco), Assembly Concurrent Resolution 25 (proposed by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani), Senate Bill 300 (proposed by Senator Alex Padilla), Senate Bill 492 (proposed by Senator Menjivar), and Senate Bill 915 (proposed by Senator Menjivar) are all bills and resolutions to expand behavioral health care that were proposed by Democratic Californian policymakers, demonstrating the need for a bipartisan policy solution in which Democratic and Republican elected officials partner together to expand behavioral health services to Californians statewide. After all, it is only if our state’s representatives from the two major parties collaborate that all Californians will have access to the behavioral health care they need.
Image credit: Psychological Assessment Resources
Citations
“Importance of Behavioral Health in Medical Settings.” Psychological Assessment Resources, 17 May 2024, www.parinc.com/learning-center/par-blog/detail/content-hub/2024/05/17/importance-of-behavioral-health-in-medical-settings.
“About Behavioral Health.” US Centers for Disease Control and Protection, 9 June 2025, www.cdc.gov/mental-health/about/about-behavioral-health.html.
“What Is Behavioral Health?” American Medical Association, 22 Aug. 2022, www.ama-assn.org/public-health/behavioral-health/what-behavioral-health.