Tonight the Davis City Council is re-examining the issue of limitation to the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter. This follows direction from the December 15, 2009 Davis City Council Meeting where Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza recommended possible modifications to the policy passed on December 1 2009.
These specifically include the following four actions.
1. Implement a procedure to facilitate ability of IRWS to increase the capacity at its cold weather shelters as needed during extreme cold weather conditions.
2. Urge the City Manager to make a determination that exigent circumstances exist (between December 15 meeting and January 12 Council discussion) and warrant the waiver of service capacity restrictions under the current IRWS Temporary Use Permit.
3. Return with additional information for Council consideration no later than January 12, 2010 on:
a. City policies and procedures regarding the facilitation of communication and sharing of information regarding service capacity among providers of homeless services;
b. A policy allowing DCC at the point of service intake to declare a temporary exemption to the service cap, subject to final determination by the City Manager, as soon as possible but not later than 24 hours, based on exigent circumstances;
and4. Direct the D Street Neighborhood City Council Subcommittee to return to Council on March 2, 2010 with an update regarding progress on the completion of the Subcommittee work plan and scope of work.
On December 1, the Davis City Council voted by a 4-1 vote to approve an MOU with Davis Community Church regarding the provision of services for homeless at their facility. This was in response to increasing frustration expressed by the neighbors on and around D Street regarding what they describe as an over-concentration of homeless services in their neighborhood.
One of the key provisions of the MOU was a 25 person limitation on services provided both in terms of cold weather shelter and in terms of a Brown Bag Lunch Program.
According to the MOU:
“DCC, in conjunction with Grace House, may continue to operate the Brown Bag Lunch Program a maximum of five days per week, during weekdays (Monday- Friday) for one hour periods each day. The Brown Bag Lunch Program shall not exceed an average of 14 persons per day, and shall not serve more than 25 persons on any given day.”
Furthermore the MOU limits the cold weather shelter to 25 persons as well.
“DCC may continue to operate the Interfaith Winter Rotating Shelter Program only during the winter months from November through March and at a maximum of four one-week periods (Sunday to Saturday) may be located on DCC properties. The IRWS Program shall not serve more than 25 persons on any given day that it is located at DCC properties. Intake for the program is to be located at an off-site location. DCC also participates with the administration of the IRWS Program. DCC will count the number of adult and children participants in the Winter Rotating Shelter Program each day that it is held on DCC property and will report those numbers monthly to the City.”
Controversy arose last week during the cold snap when apparently people were turned away from the cold weather shelter. According to an explanation last week provided by the city manager, there is to be a process by which people are to be redirected, sometimes as far away as the Wayfarer Center in Woodland.
Commentary
Moreover, the hard cap or the perception of such a cap seems cruel and untenable. The original agreement laid out specific provisions the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter (IRWS) reaches its 25-person capacity or Davis Community Meals (DCM) reaches its 10-person capacity in a given night and still has individuals who need to be served.
In December this stringency led to a huge problem when the temperatures dipped into the 20s during a cold spell.
Writes the staff report:
“During that week, the local Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter (IRWS) and Davis Community Meals (DCM) experienced high occupancy. On Monday, December 7, 2009, the IRWS reached its capacity and turned two individuals away. IRWS staff did not have clear direction on steps to take when their shelter filled.”
This issue reached the paper and generated a firestorm of outrage in the community that led to the consideration on December 15 of changes.
“In response to this occurrence, staff outlined and provided steps for IRWS and Davis Community Meals (DCM) to take if their shelter space fills locally.”
These steps include:
“Please check with the other local shelters (Davis Community Meals, Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter, and the Wayfarer Center) and identify any shelter vacancies. If there are shelter vacancies elsewhere, DCM and IRWS staff can make the necessary referral so that a guest can be accepted at any hour. DCM and IRWS Intake staff has bus vouchers to provide to individuals who need transportation to the Wayfarer shelter and back to Davis.”
Moreover:
“If the IRWS reaches its capacity of 25, all other shelter resource have been exhausted and circumstances warrant it, IRWS may accept up to 5 additional guests for a total of 30 guests, consistent with fire code allowances. In the special circumstances where this provision is used, IRWS must notify the City Manager’s Office at (530) 757-5602 within 24 hours of the increased capacity and must provide information regarding the steps taken to identify other available shelter and the necessary determination that was made to accept additional guests.”
However, from our vantage, these steps still seem onerous and place a huge burden both on the individuals served and the facilities that have voluntarily stepped forward to help people in need, but at least it allows flexibility in the numbers and provides for them getting clearance from the city after the fact rather than in advance or at the time of the overflow when it may be difficult to reach city staff.
Again, this is not to downplay the concerns by neighbors or the good faith efforts of all involved to attempt to reach a compromise, however, in this case, the compromise seems too stringent. There seems to be a number of different ways to accomplish the goal of preventing all homeless services from being concentrated in a given neighborhood and again the idea of a rotational shelter should preclude that.
In addition, the city might consider stepping up and finding multiple facilities throughout the city that could accommodate this population and relieve from the burden any one facility to provide the type of shelter and care that is needed in tough economic times.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One thing everyone needs to understand: We would not have nearly so many homeless people in Davis or in our country as a whole if we had not closed our public mental hospitals and we had not adopted laws which made involuntary treatment of seriously mentally ill patients illegal or infeasible in almost all cases. Those two changes in policy are our country’s greatest mistake since the adoption of the 18th Amendment.
The majority of the homeless are not seriously mentally ill. Only about one-third are. However, the great rise in homelessness in the United States began with the emptying of the mental hospitals in the 1970s and has never subsided since.
If our policies of neglect (and or incarceration) of the seriously mentally ill bothers you, you might want to read this ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-will-america-wake-up.html[/url]) or this ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-am-innocent-man-and-not-pervert-like.html[/url]) or this ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2010/01/he-had-been-in-and-out-of-mental.html[/url]) or this ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2010/01/friends-of-brandon-reuter-are-still.html[/url]).
I grew up during the Depression of thirties and forties in New Jersey and I do not recall anything like the homeless problem of today. Folks were not all in mental hospitals, either. In those days there were a lot of rooming houses and boarding houses. Some places had what was called “housekeeping rooms” and whole families often were housed in them. I never saw or heard of women and children left on the streets or in shelters as happens today. I believe changes in housing policies, codes together with how the Relief effort worked under FDR in those days is the difference.
I grew up during the Depression of thirties and forties in New Jersey and I do not recall anything like the homeless problem of today. Folks were not all in mental hospitals, either. In those days there were a lot of rooming houses and boarding houses. Some places had what was called “housekeeping rooms” and whole families often were housed in them. I never saw or heard of women and children left on the streets or in shelters as happens today. I believe changes in housing policies, codes together with how the Relief effort worked under FDR in those days is the difference.
“I grew up during the Depression of thirties and forties in New Jersey and I do not recall anything like the homeless problem of today. Folks were not all in mental hospitals, either. In those days there were a lot of rooming houses and boarding houses. Some places had what was called “housekeeping rooms” and whole families often were housed in them. I never saw or heard of women and children left on the streets or in shelters as happens today. I believe changes in housing policies, codes together with how the Relief effort worked under FDR in those days is the difference.”
Drug and alcohol addiction has probably contributed to the modern problem of homelessness as well. Many vets from foreign wars come home addicted to drugs, for instance, which is incredibly sad. I suspect there are a myriad of modern phenomenon that are causing homelessness, beyond mental illness. It is a complex issue…
There used to be a stat that half the homeless pop had a job