CalMatters
By Marisa Kendall, CalMatters
How much difference will a March ballot measure make when it comes to fighting California’s massive homelessness crisis? That’s the question before voters as they weigh in on Proposition 1, which has been touted as California’s chance to finally do something about the epidemic on the streets.
Prop. 1, the only proposition on California ballots this March, asks voters to green-light a $6.4 billion bond for treatment beds and housing units catering to people with mental illnesses and addictions. It also would restructure some current funding to funnel more mental health money toward housing.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed the measure, said it will “prioritize getting people off the streets, out of tents and into treatment.” The governor has a lot riding on its success, as voters become increasingly frustrated with the state’s lack of progress when it comes to cleaning up encampments and helping the people suffering within them.
But experts are cautioning against putting too much stock in Prop. 1 as a solution.
It won’t help everybody — not by a long shot. Nor is it designed to. In addition to funding 6,800 beds in facilities treating mental illness and addiction, the $6.4 billion bond would create up to 4,350 new homes for people who need mental health and addiction services — 2,350 of which would be reserved for veterans, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In a state with an estimated homeless population of more than 180,000, that will hardly make a dent.
“It will be great for those individuals, but still leaves almost 98% outside or in shelters,” said Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness.
Prop. 1 also would require counties to spend 30% of their Mental Health Services Act funds on housing — including rental subsidies and new construction. Those funds, which come from taxing California’s millionaires, are expected to raise about $1 billion per year for housing programs.
“It will be great for those individuals, but still leaves almost 98% outside or in shelters.”- Bob Erlenbusch, executive director, Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
New homes funded under Prop. 1 would target homeless Californians who often are both the most visible and the hardest to help, including those in the throes of psychosis and addiction. Many unhoused Californians don’t fit that description.
“The public perceives it as everyone, and it’s definitely not everyone,” said Dr. Margot Kushel, who directs the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, “but there are a fair number of people who have these disabling conditions.”
In a recent comprehensive study of homeless Californians, 27% of people surveyed had been hospitalized in their lifetime for a mental health problem. When asked if they had ever experienced a prolonged period of hallucinations, 23% said they had, according to the study by the Homelessness and Housing Initiative.
About one-third of those surveyed reported using drugs three or more times per week.
Even though it leaves people out, pouring resources into the sickest subset of California’s homeless community is the humane thing to do, said Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat from Stockton.
“They count too,” said Talamantes Eggman, whose bill reforming the Mental Health Services Act became half of Prop. 1. “We can’t just see people as a problem. You have to see people as people and (ask) how do we do our best to help those who need it the most?”
Targeting the people with the highest needs may be politically savvy as well. Voters who are up in arms over the state’s increasingly dire homelessness crisis — and politicians’ seeming inability to fix it — aren’t complaining about the person who drives for Uber during the day and sleeps in his car, out of sight, at night. They’re complaining about the people living in encampments, walking into traffic and shouting at nobody. Those are the people this measure could help. And that’s where voters might actually see the measure make a difference on the street.
“We’re at a point where voters need this,” said Christopher Martin, policy director for Housing California. “Voters are feeling fatigued on housing and they need to see some progress, and I think we need to demonstrate that.”
But Susan Ellenberg, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, doesn’t anticipate Prop. 1 will do much on that front.
“In terms of addressing homelessness, we need more housing, period,” she said. “And I worry that when people’s expectations are conflating, they’re disappointed and feel that problems aren’t being solved even though so much money is going out the door.”
“The public perceives it as everyone, and it’s definitely not everyone.”- Dr. Margot Kushel, director, UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative
She also worries that some of the unintended consequences of Prop. 1 could end up exacerbating her county’s homelessness crisis. To pour the required amount of Mental Health Services Act funding into housing, the county will have to take money from other programs. That means there will be fewer dollars for things like homelessness prevention and early mental health interventions. If the county skimps on the types of services that keep people off the streets in the first place, Ellenberg worries more people will fall into homelessness or their mental health will deteriorate to the point where they need even more care.
Los Angeles County’s mental health department also has “some serious concerns” about Prop. 1, said Director Lisa Wong. Last year, the county spent 32% of its Mental Health Services Act funding on outpatient services — the psychiatric care, counseling, medication and more that helps stabilize someone living outside a psychiatric facility. If Prop. 1 passes and redirects a chunk of that funding into housing, the county will be able to spend less than 18% on outpatient services — and other programs such as crisis response and homeless services will have to dip into that funding pool as well.
“We are concerned that missing those service dollars might compromise the ability of people to stay in housing once they’re housed, or to get to a place of wellness where they can be successfully housed,” Wong said.
Recent expansions in Medi-Cal mean more people are covered for more services, which should help offset funding losses, Talamantes Eggman said.
“I don’t see it as cuts,” she said. “I see it as a reprioritization.”
“In terms of addressing homelessness, we need more housing, period.”- Susan Ellenberg, president, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
There’s also the question of how counties will come up with the resources needed to make the necessary program shifts. Santa Clara County is facing a shortage of workers and hiring freezes brought on by a budget deficit, Ellenberg said.
“I feel like we’re being asked to do significantly greater amounts of work with fewer and fewer tools,” she said.
Kushel, who specializes in the intersection of homelessness and health, said the authors of Prop. 1 — Talamantes Eggman and Democratic Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks — have their priorities in the right place.
It’s nearly impossible to stabilize someone’s mental health or treat their addiction while they’re living on the street and pouring all of their effort into surviving day to day, Kushel said. But when given housing combined with the right treatment plan, even people who seem incredibly sick can thrive.
“Will it be enough? I don’t know,” she said. “But it seems like we should try.”
How can Prop. 1 funds be put to the best use? In San Diego, Deacon Jim Vargas says: detox beds. He runs Father Joe’s Villages, which has more than 1,000 shelter beds — none of which are specifically for detox. The entire county has only 77 detox beds — not nearly enough, he said.
Vargas hopes to use Prop. 1 dollars to open more.
“I’d like to think that yes, it will make a difference on the streets,” he said.
Martin, of Housing California, has more tempered expectations.
“It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said. “But it’s not everything.”
This article was originally published by CalMatters
We can see here the dregs of society … and I’m not talking about the homeless. CW, BI, SS, et. al.
$6.4 BILLION…. directed to people who have alcohol and drug problems that lead to “mental illness” who will continue to abuse and now will be funded with housing… No housing for the middle-class, no break on the CA gasoline taxes, but we’ll gladly produce more State bureaucracy, more Administrators for “Homeless Inc” and we are all supposed to accept it. The voting public in CA has gone from those who pay property and income taxes to those who profit to gain from government handouts and subsidies. It’s a wonder why the working middle-class are leaving this twisted-one-Party-State.
I understand the frustration, but people want the homeless off the streets and out of the bushes. It costs a lot in law enforcement time and money to keep dealing with addicts on the street. One way or another, money will be spent. Why not try a method that can help at least some people improve and rise above their addictions and illnesses? What are the options? We can’t just put them on buses and send them to Mars.
So true. It’s a vicious cycle. People have the “right” to live on the streets if they choose, and it makes it very difficult to get them help if they don’t want it. On the other hand, there are many who will be helped out of a difficult situation and hopefully become productive members of society again.
I think we need to change it so that people do not have the right to live on the sidewalks in front of businesses or homes. While SBStoner’s idea of a segregated area for homeless is disturbing, we really can’t expect society to work well if people are living in doorways. Some sort of homes must be made an available.
I totally agree.
“segregated area for homeless” funny how discrimination moves from skin color to social status and material wealth.
Your sewer and water system is being compromised by organized crime from Latin America possibly working in concert with China . . .
Those aware of the situation do not have regular access even a toilet. It is probably best for me to stay off of this forum because some of the things I read here make me sick to my stomach.
There is no real help. There is money put into mental health where it will stay. And the medication is billed to the tax payer to the tune of $2,000 a month for 30 pills. The money being put into mental health will do nothing for the homeless. It will assure a steady customer for expensive useless psychiatric medication that turns people into vegetables. Makes men grow breast and begin producing estrogen. Not to mention causing massive other health issues. Lipid and cholesterol problems, obesity etc. The military in some regard is interested out of necessity because Americans in some regard are being sterilized.
Ahchooo, one option that receives a lot of hate but is gaining traction is to forcibly rehabilitate them.
They have the choice whether to accept help or not but they should not have the right to colonize and vandalize public land and public amenities that tax payers pay for.
It sounds draconian to some, but I am all for forcing those who cannot live in society to live in segregated areas that they have to stay in, and that they have to receive help in. They can choose to remain homeless, but they can’t be allowed to choose to be public nuisances any longer.
This is a them problem at this point.
“It sounds draconian to some, but I am all for forcing those who cannot live in society to live in segregated areas that they have to stay in, and that they have to receive help in.”
It has nothing to do with can and cannot it has to do with allowance. The general public has very little tolerance for poverty. If you are on the street you cannot easily access a bathroom, running water, food or electricity. There is no real “help” available. There is money funneled into systems such as mental health that are designed to garner them permanent customers of astronomically priced medication that is billed to the tax payer.
I also agree with CW’s statement. There would not be so many folks in dire situations if it weren’t so costly to live in CA. For some, it’s not that easy to “just move”.
“Housing first” is actually cheaper than leaving them homeless. So, I understand the “it’s not fair” thought, to some degree. But financially it’s far better to get them off the streets.
The state is already 60+billion in the red. if we keep giving them more money, they will keep spending it stupidly. The state has plenty of money let them figure out what program to cut to fund their dreams.
Just say no to more taxes
Yeah, this looks to me like Newsom’s effort to gain votes for his next run at an office, while absolutely hammering taxpayers. No thanks.
“Vote your conscience and be quiet”
I was commenting on the article about the presidential election, dude. Look back if you want to.
Missing the point completely. Typical of someone who doesn’t follow his own unsolicited advice.
Yeah, you love to lecture people when they comment on politics from a position that you don’t like, telling them that they aren’t being productive, spend “all day” (LOL) on Edhat, blah, blah, blah.
But if you comment about Gavin Newsom or “liberal policies” which you do fairly often, it’s somehow different than that which you self righteously condemn.
Hold on now, “Doc,” didn’t you say it was pointless and lame (or something similarly inept) to complain about candidates?
We all know you think you took the Hippocratic Oath to become “a physician,” but sounds like you mistook it and thought it was the Hypocritic Oath.
Can’t you have a civil conversation without being so condescending? Seriously.
LCP – no, not with BASIC. Sorry, I can’t be civil with such a hateful, condescending, cruel and insulting person.
Sad to see you stick up for him. I’m sure you can be better.
Also, I can…. with people deserving of such. I do it all the time here. All you do is voice your constant complaints (and nothing else I’ve seen here) on my comments. That’s on you, not me.
The division of societal resources (politics) is so difficult!
“To pour the required amount of Mental Health Services Act funding into housing, the county will have to take money from other programs.”
I have concerns about some specifics here; I need to look further into it.
Imagine, if you will, the State rewarding kids that graduate HS with a 3.8 or greater grade point average, 4 years of tuition free College education in STEM curriculum with the $6.4 BILLION of taxpayer funds…
That would be pretty amazing.
That would be awesome! So, why do you cons keep screaming and rallying against free college?
Except you should expand that. It doesn’t need to be STEM.
Absolutely, whether it’s STEM, art, history, whatever. I love it. Meritocracy. You earn it, you get a reward. It makes a difference in kids’ lives.
I agree in theory. Although in order for meritocracy to actually work, everyone would need to start at the same starting line with the exact same amount of resources. So if the only students getting 3.8 GPAs and free tuition are those with parents who can afford to pay for tutors, after school programs, and extra classes, then it’s not exactly a meritocracy is it?
Look, I don’t think high school or college success is coming from paid tutors or “extra classes”. It’s effort from the student and support from parents and teachers. Everyone gets what they put into it. If you’re saying you can just buy your way into a great education, I’d say that’s wrong. I don’t believe that at all.
Hmm. Two families. One a single mother making 40k per year with a three year old child. The other two parents making 500k with a three year old child.
The single child’s mom only has the resources to be a renter in Lompoc Unified School District area.
The intact family buys a home in Montecito/MUS district.
So, yeah, you can buy yourself into a great education because, by every conceivable measure, the kids at MUS are getting better educations than the kids in Lompoc Unified and early educational success is of course the great predictor of life long success in education.
And, beyond that, your assumption that the “parents” (yeah, because every child has two available and involved parents, ridiculous assumption) don’t have the same educations and therefore are not as equipped to assist their children in maximizing their potential, regardless of the “effort” that people put in.
The wealthy family not only gets a starting line at MUS which is halfway to success, they also get to augment their children’s educations with hired assistance in areas where the kids are struggling, they have the money to get their kids privately assessed if they might be dealing with learning disabilities.
What planet does this dude live on that he believes you can’t buy your way into a great education?
I think meritocracy means that it is ability only that determines success/advancement, without regard to the difficulties one endured to demonstrate that ability. I believe that you’re suggesting that if such a free-tuition-for-all-with-a-3.8-GPA were implemented, it would only be fair if it considered one’s class. Is that true? If so, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I’d only point out that you’d be arguing for something other than a meritocracy.
No I don’t think meritocracy means success is based on ability, not at all. It means success is based on achievement. Big difference. Thanks for asking.
Really? From the google, meritocracy is a “government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.” I’d argue that achievement is the best (fairest) estimation of ability. 😉
I stand corrected. And I agree with you – it’s ALL about achievement.
In high-level sports, for example, talent is a lot easier to find than effort and achievement. You’re “talented”? Yes, but what have you done with it?
Regardless of whether we agree with someone on political or ideological matters, it’s admirable to say, “I stand corrected.”
I suppose I’m pointing out the flaws of a proposed meritocracy for students to achieve free higher education. I should have added that it’s likely students from middle to upper class backgrounds would benefit from this much more than lower income students who may struggle with food insecurity and poverty on top of likely other contributing factors whereas middle and upper class families likely don’t have those issues on a large scale.
Thank you for the straightforward reply.
So you’d vote to use tax dollars to fund kids’ college tuition, books, etc (basically give them a free ride) if they “deserved” it through their academic achievements? Your tax dollars?
I have absolutely ZERO faith this hypocritical snake of a governor will do anything but use this money to fill the trough for his piggish friends, family, and lazy bureaucrats. Meanwhile the homeless population will grow and get more crazed and violent.
This is a road to nowhere and a waste of many. Rehabilitation centers are easily accessible and plentiful if you are a California resident and can prove your identity.
The people mentioned here are done with the mental health system and want nothing to do with it. If you are homeless your life unfolds in plain view of society. Labeling someone mentally ill is a joke to steet people and the FIRST thing that tips them off you are best to be avoided.
Take a guy. Any living, breathing organism and keep it awake for 3 or 4 nights because they can’t sleep due to being harassed, stolen from or moved. Compound this every day with medical conditions like irritable bowel syndrome and having to walk up to two miles or more to urinate and deficate or receive a citation. Combine that with total identity loss . . . If someone is abusive to them and treat them sub human as most due. If they so much as respond there is some doctor ready to apply a label and castrate them with medication that does nothing but turn a man into a woman.
The people you want to help probably won’t be able to access your services anyway. If you want to get homeless people off the street. Start by finding out who has lost their identity and how it is being used and help them get it back if possible. There are powerful organized crime elements that will thwart their recovering their identity ever again because how it is being used would end up putting people in jail.
Why are people deciding to live on the street instead of in the shelter? It’s simple. They want to keep their things. If you want the shelter system to be a viable resource. Make the property room and such more secure. And get rid of the people in the staff . . . Be it the DEA or whoever who is going through peoples bags. Because the contents of those bags becomes public knowledge and people inside the shelter begin working in concert to claim your property. And they take it usually through a group effort that doesn’t require violence.
Also. Stop mis-framing the debate about migration and making it a racial hit button topic. The shelter is 92% Latin American and 8# American. MANY. Not all. But many of the migrants operate in concert as groups and essentially wipe the Americans down to nothing. Look at the homeless on the street. An English speaking American is generally underweight and carrying most of their possessions with them everywhere.
I have said this and mentioned it in other posts. But characterizing the wave of migration here as an invasion is not necessarily inaccurate. It isn’t just Latin America. It is organized crime from around the world including China. Some of the migrants DO have a malicious agenda when it comes to Americans as the target of their theft is not only profit. But ruin and identity theft. They will unscrew all the shampoo bottles in your bag. Steal one single shoe. Steal one sock every chance they get and tear holes in your clothing if they can. Eventually the Americans either leave the shelter entirely or begin working with them as a subservient. Most migrants are very temporary at the shelter and usually have a construction job waiting for them. Americans generally don’t.
There is much more to the situation than this. Santa Barbara needs to be concerned and realize that if they target and treat every last homeless person the same. There are people on the ground who are appalled by how society is treating them.
I have read two very interesting things lately. 1 – an article in the New Yorker about a new supportive housing development. Getting clean is not required, you have your own apartmen. 2 – an article locally about the “point in time” count, where one of the subjects was a homeless man from Maine – Maine bought this man and his girlfriend each one way bus tickets to California. What?
@mm1970- There was a fellow, like 8 years ago, who would leave his HOUSE and Wife in Maryland every October (I won’t mention his name, but I am sure the folks @ SBHA remember him). He took the Amtrak to SB and be-lined it over to Santa Barbara Housing Authority and signed up for an apartment, then checked in @ the Cacique Shelter until an opening occurred for the apartment. Being a senior, Black-Veteran, he never waited too long… He would stay (he called it his vacation) in the subsidized housing until May each year and then go back to his HOME and Wife in Baltimore… Most (75+%) of the local “homeless” population are from out of the County and State. There will never be enough “housing” for the “homeless” in California….especially in “The American Riviera…”
Just because you heard about a guy doing this (whether it’s true or not), that doesn’t mean every homeless person does this. And 75% of the homeless population is not from out of the county and state. Where is your data to back this up?
ANON – He has no data, just what he “watches.”
Actually CoastWatch, the “Point in time” counts show that most (>70%) of the local homeless are from here. They were living here when they became homeless (78%), and >70% had been living here for more than 5 years. You have your numbers completely backwards.
Thank you for adding a fact and source to counter the misinformation.
Any story intended to illustrate government dysfunction that starts out “there was a fellow” is less than authoritative.
The simple fact of the matter and the truth is the problem isn’t fixed and won’t be because it is enriching a large number of people who want to keep it all quiet. But . . . the kicker here now is there is an actual element of terrorism and foreign espionage at play. Which will ultimately trump those pocketing off the misery. You will understand when you start having to pay people bribes to flush your toilet.
Wow. Alrighty then, Daniel. Some of that stuff sounds really off to me, but that’s just my opinion. But I also the sense you have some experience with shelters, which I do not.
The country is in a very precarious state at the moment. You need to allow the legal system to work for ALL Americans period. You don’t realize it but the sewer and water system is being compromised.
Also. Another tidbit of information for you. It is common knowledge on the street. If you want to get “help.” Just go to people and tell them you are bat sh*t. In some regard that is the ONLY way or quickest way out. And you get shackled to medication the rest of your life and allowed into society as a 2nd class citizen as opposed to a 3rd. No more money needs to go into mental health. Mental health is an octopus swimming in gold eating everything in front of it.
If the individual is an American citizen. I don’t care about their race, color or religion. And you want this situation to start going away. Help people get back their identity. See if you can even do it . . . Many homeless are slaves to international crime rings. The drug addict label just aids the process. If you care about the future of this country falling into foreign hands. Start there. See what it requires. See if you can do it. Watch how hard it will be and see if you can even make progress . . . And not end up on the street your self.
If someone comes along with solutions to fix the issue . . . My guess is they will be ruined.
You want people self sufficient correct? Help people reacquire their identity. Give them a mailbox that isn’t one 50 other people use. Focus on that. And that alone as a starting point. Without that housing, food etc. mean nothing unless they are going to be provided PERMANENTLY because people cannot get employed if they cannot prove who they are. They cannot obtain housing because they cannot get employed and make the money to pay the rent . . . welfare . . . food stamps. Talk to the people living on the street. Many have no identity and were in those programs at one point. Someone else is taking that money.
Laws that make people walk farther to the bathroom, electricity, water etc may cause a short lived appearance as a solution. It guarantees without any doubt whatsoever that homelessness will be PERMANENT . . .
For one person to recover their identity . . . once it is totally gone. No documents. No ID. No phone. No mailbox . . . My guess the process will take years and probably cost 5 figures . . . and once they have that information squared away . . . they have to be able to maintain a mailbox etc they only have access to. If your identity is still in tact you are a target until it is gone and you are not.
…I’m thinkin’ SACJON has been “Aced” by this dude…! LOL!
COASTWATCH – what do you mean? I stopped trying to make sense of the comments yesterday. Oh wait, because it’s weird and a little unhinged? Am I so? My desire for empathy and treating people equally regardless of how they were born? Giving those who have historically been oppressed a little boost now so they’re on an equal playing field with straight white men? Is that all so nutty? Maybe to devout bigot, it is.
Homelessness is and most likely will always be a for profit business incentivized by ensuring the continual maintenance and expansion of human suffering.
If you believe anyone is serious about getting rid of it. I will tell you exactly how. And most likely will end up in worse shape than I already am. Those counting on the revenue are also counting on your ignorance of the situation. And for your fear and judgement to protect their human assets.