Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act
With the Ukiah Daily Journal spotlighting the intertwined crises of homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse, it’s the perfect time to revisit a pivotal moment in California’s mental health history—one that continues to shape the present-day disaster on our streets. The common narrative pins the closure of state mental hospitals on then-Governor Ronald Reagan in the 1960s. But here's the twist: Reagan didn’t close the hospitals. He didn’t shutter a single room.The truth is more nuanced—and more maddening.
What did happen was the 1967 passage of the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act, a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that transformed mental health policy in California and, later, across the nation. The law aimed to safeguard individual rights and end involuntary confinement in mental institutions. But in practice, it led to an exodus of patients and the slow dismantling of the state hospital system—with no adequate safety net to catch those who left.
Who Wrote the LPS Act?
The LPS Act was co-authored by:Frank Lanterman, a moderate Republican assemblyman from Los Angeles County who had long advocated for civil rights protections in public health.
Nicholas C. Petris, a liberal Democratic state senator from Alameda County known for his humanitarianism.
Alan Short, a Democratic senator from San Joaquin County who had previously worked on mental health issues.
Together, they crafted the LPS Act as a modern “Bill of Rights” for people with mental illness. Their aim was compassionate: to end the indefinite, involuntary commitment of patients and to promote community-based alternatives.
And Who Backed It?
The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support—77–1 in the Assembly and similarly in the Senate. Governor Reagan, though often blamed for the consequences, simply signed a bill that nearly every legislator endorsed. The legislation also had backing from civil liberties advocates, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which championed its protections against involuntary detention and what it viewed as systemic abuses in state-run institutions.At the time, many viewed this as a moral and legal triumph. The ACLU and others rightly raised concerns about patients locked away for years without meaningful recourse—some for no reason other than being eccentric, elderly, or inconvenient to their families.
The Good Intentions… and the Fallout
The LPS Act had noble goals:Protect individual liberties.
Curb involuntary and indefinite institutionalization.
Promote evaluation and treatment in less restrictive settings.
Create a legal pathway for conservatorship of the gravely disabled.
Encourage treatment in community-based settings.
But one critical element never materialized: funding.
While the law called for the development of community-based mental health clinics, housing, and outpatient care, lawmakers failed to provide the necessary money to build or sustain these services. That failure is bipartisan and ongoing. Even today, community mental health infrastructure remains fractured, underfunded, and often nonexistent.
The Courts Join In
During the 1970s, court rulings further restricted involuntary treatment. Mentally ill individuals could only be held for 72 hours under a "5150" psychiatric hold—extended to 14 days only if they were deemed gravely disabled or dangerous to themselves or others. But that’s rarely enough time to stabilize someone suffering from schizophrenia or severe bipolar disorder. In many cases, patients were discharged and disappeared—often to the streets.This era of "deinstitutionalization" was hailed as enlightened. Reformers believed that with freedom and support, people with mental illness would live independently and thrive. Instead, many fell into homelessness, addiction, or incarceration—systems ill-equipped to provide care or compassion.
Even Frank Lanterman himself later expressed deep regret over how the law played out:
“I wanted the law to help the mentally ill. I never meant for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it.”
Fast-Forward to Today
Fifty years later, the legacy of the LPS Act is visible on every California street corner. According to the state’s own figures:$7.2 billion was spent last year to address homelessness.
$6.7 billion was allocated to mental health programs.
California had an estimated 172,000 homeless individuals, equating to $42,000 spent per person.
$9,718 was the average spent per mental health client.
And yet, ask anyone actually struggling on the streets—where’s the help?
The answer: lost in bureaucracy, diverted into consulting fees, staffing costs, administrative bloat, and the growing Homeless-Mental Health Industrial Complex, a revolving door of agencies and nonprofits that manage—but do not solve—the problem.
The Definition of Insanity
So, no—Reagan didn’t close the hospitals. The people did, aided by well-meaning but tragically underfunded policy. The courts, the legislature, and civil liberties advocates like the ACLU helped usher in a system designed to protect rights but ultimately abandoned those most in need.Fifty years later, we’re still paying the price—and still failing the mentally ill.
In trying to protect freedom, we forgot about care. And in doing so, we’ve built a system that’s both inhumane and ineffective.
Isn’t that, as the saying goes, the definition of insanity?
