The homeless/houseless numbers in California are staggering and it is overwhelming communities urban and rural as people live and die miserably in numbers unseen in this country since the depression. Much of it began in the aftermath of the Vietnam War as the Veterans Administration failed tens of thousands of veterans. Endless wars since have exacerbated the problem as have the epidemics of crack and fentanyl as well as the endless epidemic of alcoholism. Everyone acknowledges that we have a failed mental health system, even conservatives when they want to deflect discussion of gun regulation following our endless mass shootings.
We have a mental health crisis as well as a substance abuse crisis all wrapped into the changing of economic structures which has generated the permanent underclass since the 1980s as the middle class continues to erode into politics of anger and grievance.
There is no real national discussion of the issue except to blame opposing politics. It is a nationwide problem as many of the homeless in California have come from other states with less survivable weather; more hostility towards the poor, or lack of services.
The state is experiencing collective burnout as many individuals and communities who were once empathetic are becoming more numb or more agitated to the poverty they drive and walk by. It is overwhelming.
Until the federal government takes up the issue of street poverty in a comprehensive and regional way, the states are on their own and California is uniquely impacted because we have more survivable weather; more generosity for panhandling, and more relief services public and private. But we cannot seem to even mitigate the crisis as it facilitates crime and is damaging economies even more.
There is no single policy which will solve houselessness and all of the associated problems. But as a former prosecutor once told me, “we need to address the elements of crime and poverty on a medical basis.”
California has spent tens of millions trying to address the problems, but there has been little by the way of comprehensive policy and it is not clear how the money, much of it, has been spent in the localities to which it has been distributed. While I agree that there should not be a singular one size fits all program that does not address the particular needs of communities, simply sending money to local agencies has not worked. We need a comprehensive policy.
I was at the Democratic Party Nominating Convention this last fall where the Proposition 1 was proposed for nomination (it was so granted) by a representative of the firefighters and first responders associations which are apparently very optimistic about the initiative’s approaches. The testimony included stories of crisis encounters where the responders recognized the need for residential treatment, but ran into the inability to refer anyone for lack of facilities.
Proposition 1, the “Treatment not Tents” initiative, will restructure the mental health system by expanding the concept to “behavioral health” and incorporate substance abuse given that there is huge overlap the needs between the two issues. It will require that 30 percent of the Behavioral Health Department spending (from the 1 percent tax of people earning over a million annually) be used for housing intervention programs. It will nearly double the size of the oversight committee. And mostly it will issue 6.8 million dollars in bonds, about two-thirds of which will be dedicated to the construction of residential facilities for mental health and addiction treatment while the other third is dedicated to housing for those living on the street.
This will lead to a bit of centralization of the organizing around these issues and it will draw money from some existing programs, some of which are working, and some of which are apparently a waste of money. But this doesn’t mean that the legislature can’t be pressured to fund the working programs. It strictly pertains to the Proposition 63 money (the above-described tax passed by voters in 2004). It does not pertain to the general fund.
There are civil libertarian concerns that the allocation of some of the money to facilities for treatment of the involuntarily committed will lead to more court decisions depriving people of freedom. However, Proposition 1 does nothing to change the criteria for involuntary commitment, which will remain a question of whether individuals are proven to be danger to themselves or others. It may be that some judges will be more likely to issue such orders if they know there are more facilities available, but that is an argument for more precise guidelines, not whether the facilities are needed.
Most of the rest of the opposition comes from the usual tax posses complaining about the money. It is not free. The state will be paying off the bonds for some years. But that is how stuff gets built. We expend the money and then we have the infrastructure. That’s how we build schools, firehouses, parks, police stations, etc.
The official ballot opposition tries to make an argument that fits all, and so contradicts itself from one paragraph to the next. In one paragraph it points to the ineffectiveness of the current programs.
“The State has failed at reducing California’s homelessness problem. Sacramento has already thrown $20 billion at the crisis in the last five years without making significant progress. The number of unhoused people increased 6% last year. The State Auditor’s Office is still trying to find where the billions went. We will indeed have more tents in our neighborhoods and fewer people in treatment if Prop. 1 passes. If the state wants a grand solution for homelessness, it should attack the heart of the problem through the regular budget process—not expensive bond measures that RAISE TAXPAYER COSTS LONG-TERM. Californians are already some of the most over-taxed people in the country.” (emphasis added)
And then in the next paragraph it states opposition based upon the fact that these very same ineffective programs may be defunded.
“PROP. 1 CUTS SERVICES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL. In 2004, the voters passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which dedicated funds for community-based mental health services. Prop. 1 STEALS AWAY almost 1/3 of that guaranteed annual funding from the “millionaire’s tax” leaving already underfunded programs to fight for the remaining money. That’s why CalVoices, California’s oldest mental health advocacy agency, opposes it.”
But obviously these programs aren’t working, so which is it?
Proposition 1 attempts to incorporate some of the European models – countries which are facing similar economic challenges, but which do not suffer the same degree of houselessness (probably also because they tend to fight fewer wars and because they take a more holistic approach to drug regulation).
It’s not going to solve the problem of street poverty, but it may mitigate it significantly. In any case, nothing else is working. And it’s not just theory. Similar approaches have worked in other countries. Let’s give it a try.
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 12, 2024 at 9:42 am
Anonymous
There are mental health programs that are not intended for homeless people which will be affected. Homelessness is not the only mental health issue we have to deal with.
February 12, 2024 at 10:54 am
Eric Kirk
But again, not everything has to come from the Prop 63 funding. If you have a program that’s working then demand funding for it from the general fund.
February 12, 2024 at 11:10 am
Henchman Of Justice
the crisis moves lock-step with border crossers turned residents, the State Housing data shows this fact… short unit #’s essentially equals illegals as residents…
…meanwhile, transgenders are affirmed as being good con men… kinda funny in retrospect… be a dude, become a career criminal, go tranny to extend the lifestyle unrecognized for a time…
…new beginnings in USA, by outsiders who can turn trans…
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lakewood-church-shooting-suspect-identified-transgender-woman-long-criminal-record
February 12, 2024 at 11:18 am
Anonymous
I remain on the fence because we do have to “do something.” But I wish they had included a second proposition for guaranteed funding of the existing programs (that “work”).
February 12, 2024 at 11:23 am
Henchman Of Justice
Americans think too big on homelessness.
Simply, offer all the non-drug users a program whereby they agree to:
1) Free aide to get the basics (food, shelter, work clothes)
2) Mandated job, paycheck amount deducts aide paid out
3) 1 year for recipient to get local job that replaces aide 100%
4) move to another area with better employment opportunities
5) forfeit all local assistance, except a 1 way ticket out of area
After giving the best of the worst an opportunity to rise from hell, should the worst of the worst be given consideration aside from the ongoing criminal focus homelessness generates…
February 12, 2024 at 11:36 am
Henchman Of Justice
EK wants to dive right into a corporatized medical classification for homelessness, even though it is economics as the biggest factor…
…most folks are just like the homeless, daily… and are dealing with life … and can hold themselves composed, shielded, closeted, etc… with a roof over their head, despite all their mental health abuses and low-class, unfulfilled lifestyle caused by the very people who voters vote for…
…Prop 1 won’t do homelessness correctly, nothing the 2 Party System supporters agree to will ever workout for the better…
Voting is nothing but negative… voting is choosing the worst people who are only gonna make matters worse…
History is my source…
Don’t Vote, Waste of Time…
February 12, 2024 at 12:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Have you ever worked with houseless people Henchman? Worked a soup kitchen or shelter?
I didn’t think so.
February 13, 2024 at 4:36 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
I will vote for prop 1 but it certainly seems like, from your description Eric, and thank you for the time and effort, that we are paying for housing with mental health funds.
A general complaint, and this goes to the concept of neoliberalism, when introducing the issue of homelessness you don’t talk about the cost of homes. So here we are, it seems focusing on homelessness primarily as a mental health issue when the issue is, and has been about the cost of shelter.
Not only are our hands tied in controlling rent because of built-up fear-mongering about authoritarianism, we won’t even build a housing proposition without taking from other essential services.
It’s as if this proposition is less about the mentally ill and their needs and more about the needs of those who don’t want to see or interact with mentally ill homeless people.
February 13, 2024 at 4:50 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
OK, doing a modicum of research on this, I’m voting no on prop 1. This is a Trojan horse in that it’s being sold as increased funds for the homeless, something I’m always for, but it also guts the MHSA
Prop. 1 wipes out what this community has fought for and accomplished over the last 20 years. In 2004, we collaboratively wrote the Mental Health Services Act, or MHSA, and qualified it for the ballot by gathering more than 370,000 signatures and it passed. For the first time in California history, the public mental health system had a dedicated funding source for the services we wanted and we designed – and it exceeded what Medi-Cal covered.
Currently, the MHSA is controlled at the community level. Counties receive funds based on formulas with few restrictions and are required to design programs and spend the funds by involving people living with serious mental illness and their families, including those from marginalized communities. The MHSA funds highly effective and unique services, such as peer support where people who have recovered from serious mental illness act as providers for each other. Prevention and early intervention funds went toward community-defined services for those who do not have access through traditional pathways for behavioral health.
Now comes Prop. 1, which was crafted behind closed doors and all but decimates the MHSA with a plethora of new state mandates and top-down control. Hidden behind the campaign slogan “treatment not tents” are devastating cuts to voluntary mental health services for the most severely mentally ill and an unprecedented giveaway of taxpayer money to build privatized facilities.
California’s counties testified that if Prop. 1 passes, it will force counties to cut basic mental health services, including outpatient treatment, crisis services and peer support services that maintain stability for high-risk clients and save lives. Prop. 1 also asks counties to provide services to those with substance use disorders from the same severely diminished funds.
The measure is being marketed as the latest panacea to address homelessness, but it will fail to do so. Last year, a comprehensive UCSF study found that homelessness is not caused by serious mental illness or substance use disorders but by high rents, low incomes and sudden loss of incomes. The research offered different solutions: small amounts of rental assistance to help keep people housed.
We also know that a housing-first strategy is what stabilizes people with behavioral health needs, allowing them to receive care they want in a permanent home. Expensive treatment facilities and vague, broad, force-first civil commitment laws will just temporarily disappear some of our unhoused into revolving-door systems that rarely end with a permanent home.
Prop. 1 is bad policy. The public mental health system needs the MHSA services funding to keep people with serious mental illness well-stabilized and housed. The only reason the MHSA is on the ballot is because of protections that do not allow it to be fundamentally altered without voter approval.
That gives voters the opportunity to save the MHSA and vote against Prop. 1.
February 13, 2024 at 5:01 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Maybe this is from a purist, (Clare Cortright, policy director at CalVoives), what does the mainstream think?
Oops, the League of Women’s Voters is against Prop 1.
VOTE NO on Prop 1: Mental Health Care and Addiction Treatment Reform & Bonds to Build Places for Treatment and Supportive Housing.
Although California has a critical need to resource better mental health and addiction services and to address our crisis of homelessness, the League of Women Voters of California opposes Proposition 1 for a number of important reasons. While the additional housing resources offered through Prop 1 are sorely needed, they do not outweigh its flaws.
The bond portion of the measure was rushed through the legislature with last-minute amendments that opened the door to funding involuntary treatment in locked facilities. The rushed nature of these amendments precluded substantive debate and ignored arguments from diverse community-based organizations and health care and civil rights advocates. These groups contend that community-based care is more effective than institutionalization and that incentivizing institutionalization will both lead to worse health outcomes and curtail individual liberties.
Furthermore, Prop 1 does not increase the overall funding for mental health services for counties – the bond money is to build treatment units and supportive housing. Under the changes this measure makes to the Mental Health Services Act, more of the money received by counties must be used for housing of a certain group of patients and for intensive, personalized support services like assistance finding employment and accessing educational opportunities. This reallocation reduces the funds available for other mental health services that counties currently offer to patients, like treatment, crisis response, and outreach. It has the overall effect of reducing counties’ ability to set priorities based on local needs for mental health services. Any variances that may allow counties to spend more or less on specific categories would increase their administrative costs and do not erase the lack of flexibility they would have to meet specific needs.
Finally, budgetary decisions should be made by the legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Earmarking restricts the counties and the state from redirecting funds to alternative models of care that may arise in the future, or to other emerging and essential needs.
VOTE NO ON PROP 1
This in Eric’s argument for prop 1 really should have been a red flag that he’d moved to the other side at least on prop 1, the one you can usually see at Eurka City Council meetings and the one that is backing the Housing for All initiative in Eureka.
The state is experiencing collective burnout as many individuals and communities who were once empathetic are becoming more numb or more agitated to the poverty they drive and walk by. It is overwhelming.
Clare Cortright’s piece at Cal Matters…
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2024/02/mental-health-risk-proposition-1/
February 13, 2024 at 5:07 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
Most of the rest of the opposition comes from the usual tax posses complaining about the money.
Oops, COMPLETELY not true. Did you intentionally omit a discussion of the opposition to losing mental health treatment funding or were you not aware?
February 13, 2024 at 5:09 am
Jon Yalcinkaya
And kudos to anon at 11:18 yesterday for catching this shortfall of prop 1.
February 13, 2024 at 6:39 am
Just Watchin
Sounds like the GOP committee wants to call in for testimony biden’s ghost writer. After all, magoo says he didn’t share any classified info, right ?
February 13, 2024 at 7:57 am
Henchman Of Justice
Rhetorical self-answers now in EK’s head vacuum shed, eh🤷♂️… regardless of the opposite facts… EK has strange methods in communication… especially asking questions EK wants to answer himself first… very powerful stuff by vang…
February 12, 2024 at 12:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Have you ever worked with houseless people Henchman? Worked a soup kitchen or shelter?
I didn’t think so.
February 13, 2024 at 8:07 am
Henchman Of Justice
Jonboi, was a YES on 1, then a NO on 1… voting really has Jonboi spinning circles…
… only ten more to go Jonboi… and then the YES on Trump vote…
Democrats In Name Only… DINO.
February 13, 2024 at 8:21 am
Eric Kirk
“Sounds like the GOP committee wants to call in for testimony biden’s ghost writer. After all, magoo says he didn’t share any classified info, right ?”
Of course they do. They’re desperate.
February 13, 2024 at 8:23 am
Eric Kirk
Finally, budgetary decisions should be made by the legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Earmarking restricts the counties and the state from redirecting funds to alternative models of care that may arise in the future, or to other emerging and essential needs.
I agree, but the money in question was established by a ballot initiative anyway, so it’s just appropriating inappropriate money to begin with.
February 13, 2024 at 8:40 am
Just Watchin
Vang…..what happened to the video I posted of magoo with King Abdullah ?
February 13, 2024 at 9:30 am
Eric Kirk
It’s still wherever you posted it.
February 13, 2024 at 9:51 am
Just Watchin
Nope, but it’s worth posting again…..
February 13, 2024 at 9:52 am
Anonymous
Has Betty Chinn weighed in on this proposition? As someone who as worked so long and so tirelessly on behalf of unhoused folks, including many with mental health challenges, I’d give her opinion a great deal of weight.
February 13, 2024 at 12:00 pm
Eric Kirk
She tends to stay out of politics, but I’ll ask around.
February 14, 2024 at 7:27 am
Henchman Of Justice
Betty Chinn, is she ever put in a pinch, Thanks EK…🤷♂️
…I’ll offer Miss Chinn a single opportunity to support a “certain” policy change that will only help reverse homelessness for folks who can do chores, simple tasks and work… the same stuff the homeless did just fine as housed people before being “forced” homeless…
… and if Miss Chinn snubs her nose yet again, then she’ll deserve criticism yet again…
***********************
the lead in: State accusing folks that folks are incapable of doing a task correctly because that task is not less than $500 labor + materials, then obstructing justice by lying to consumers that the unlicensed do things the licensed do not… when reality is A SUPER-MAJORITY OF CONSUMER CONSTRUCTION LEGAL ISSUES ARE BECAUSE A LICENSED CONTRACTOR IS INVOLVED!
Consumers have more control with the unlicensed tasker, not to mention the “threat leverage”…to call in State Goons… for anything that can initially appear as “a thing”, but later to be determined no violation, which then there should be a renumeration for the falsely accused unlicensed tasker, like a policy that helps get the tasker paid in full, the consumer go to jail.
How Long problem has manifested: Over 30 years, 4 decades+
Who is affected: folks bordering poverty, enough homeless
Why: State want license fees, employees. no sole proprietor woes
What: outdated policy/ legal fine that needs amended
Solution: Raise limit from $500 to $5000
example sting story: https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2024/feb/13/unlicensed-contractors-eureka-busted-during-sting/
Notes: costs of everything have steadily inclined over 4 decades, and when push comes to shove with construction industry woes, the big fish and State Government traitors will forcefully un-house people all because The State employees turn their back on the rest of society, suggesting that a paint job 4 decades ago was done correctly if less than $500, but today it can’t be…
…because the paint job does not cost enough!
OK then, raise the maximum to $5000!!
IF CHINN WILL NOT SUPPORT RAISING THE $500 MAXIMUM to $5000 MAXIMUM,
then Chinn will be getting lots of pejorative words slung her way…
like high school sports in a way… to force costs up and participation down… all because The State conspires with certain businesses to force a cashless society…for ticket sales, once playoffs start… no more cash, and admission fees also are not advertised with the gofan $1.50 extra processing charge from a credit card…
…so after being forced to walk by the progressives, ya get to the gate with cash to pay the admission fee, but the liberal democrat water carrier high school student was given her marching order…
… so, then one is forced to walk back, all for not (progressives will cheer the excercise)… ranting about the experience (forced mental health episode by progressives) and tripping out as to how low society has fallen off a cliff… because progressives care more about material stuff as opposed to simplicity….as opposed to going from tree huggers to scorched Earth Policy mass trails and transit builders after ditching conservation values…
… money wins is all progressives practice anymore…just like the uppity conservatives and liberal moderates, which today’s progressives model themselves after… money… power to control yields more money… until it does not!
Let us see if Betty Chinn will support the homeless before they become homeless, so they won’t become homeless… support raising the maximum to $5000.00!