By Tia Will
Sometimes life converges in ways we do not expect. This happened to me over the course of the past week. I had three experiences which led me to the fourth which I will describe in more detail later. First, a little background.
1. Last week, I reviewed the city survey regarding opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of downtown along with suggestions for improvement. I was struck by the number of comments suggesting/demanding the removal of the homeless from downtown, by the paucity of suggestions for how to accomplish this, and the complete absence of ideas regarding how they might be helped to improve their circumstances.
2. On Sunday I attended the Community Meals fundraiser which serves as a fun way to see friends & eat a good meal while raising funds for a worthy community service. This year’s event was marked by an address from the mayor. Robb Davis highlighted the community spirit of those in attendance and the positive contributions made by the group. He went on to address the issue of homelessness in our community and the inadequacy of the efforts to date to address this issue. One point particularly resonated with me. This was the role of individual relationship building in addressing the needs of the homeless.
3. Then, while walking through downtown a couple of days ago, I witnessed an encounter between one of our bicycle police officers and a man inhabiting a large portion of the sidewalk . I heard a brief portion of the conversation. It was apparent this was not a unique conversation but one they had had on a number of occasions. It seemed singularly unsatisfactory for both & ended with the officer riding off and the man resuming his previous position.
By then, life seemed to be telling me that there was something here I should be paying attention to, which brings me to the fourth event. On Wednesday, I attended the brown bag lunch at River City Bank. The discussion was led by Michael Bisch, Bill Habitch, Bill Pride, and Martha Teeter. There were about 10 other businessmen and community members in attendance.
Unbeknownst to me, for the past year this group, along with a number of others, has been working on a project called Pathways to Employment. This is a program to address the issues of homelessness in a way that builds relationships and opportunities for the homeless in our community. It is based in part on the belief that they are members of our community just as are the business owners, the workers, the students and the retired. They have a right to live in our community and that many, given the opportunity, will have the ability to be contributing members of it.
This project is a collaborative effort between the City of Davis, Yolo County, Davis Community Church and other members of the faith community, Davis Community Meals, Davis Opportunity Village, Sutter Health, the Davis Downtown Business Association, the Chamber of Commerce….and probably others I am forgetting.
The project is currently in the first six weeks of what is envisioned to involve three levels of engagement. The first phase involves downtown beautification. Individuals who are currently in transitional programs who are interested in participating are identified to participate in a part-time jobs program. They are given clean up/ beautification jobs beginning at 4-5 hours weekly with a wage of $12/hr. When the individual has demonstrated the reliability, knowledge, and skills to function at this level, they can progress to levels 2 and 3 with progressive skills development advancing to a mentoring and potentially supervisory role for those at lower levels in the program. The goals include development of a skill set and patterns of behavior that will allow them to find employment & integrate into the larger community.
The challenges for the individual remain large. This program as currently envisioned does not provide housing. It does not provide a wage sufficient for independence. At the present time it does not entail advanced skills training. However, it is built upon community strengths. Davis is a community with many involved citizens and charitable groups. We have strong outreach to the homeless themselves from multiple groups including our shelters, transitional programs, our faith community, and our police.
There are also challenges at the community level. There has been a lack of robust engagement of the broader citizenry in this project. Needs include increased awareness and willingness to participate in hiring graduates of this program once that point is reached. One suggestion was that businesses could collaborate in offering to provide employment for which specific skill sets could be taught prior to program completion. Funding will be another ongoing need. Grants and matching funds are an existing source. One innovative approach is donation “parking meters” downtown which could serve as alternative means of benefiting panhandlers rather than simply handing them cash, with proceeds providing an ongoing source of program revenue.
Group discussion at the lunch addressed the diversity of the homeless population, including transients passing through, students, and individuals with addiction and mental health issues with varying needs, depending on individual circumstances. Also briefly explored were housing options for participants and graduates of the program and additional funding streams. A last item was how best to publicize this project with multiple strategies discussed. This was my introduction to the program, and this piece is a first effort to introduce it to a wider audience. I left the meeting with a mind full of ideas and a more positive attitude knowing that there are like-minded individuals working on this intransigent problem in a creative, collaborative fashion.
As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions.
Good morning Tia,
Great article. The “path back” approach is one I support and as you note even if the job is not enough to support a person one can build on success. I would contrast this approach with Housing First which keeps people in their sickness.
Really tremendous change does happen.
I don’t think this is an accurate description. Housing First is based on a very rational and evidence-based approach. Harm reduction is much more reasonable than zero-tolerance abstinence-based policies. I just think people need to understand the limitations of the Housing First programs and understand that they require a high level of community involvement and significant other resources being deployed. I don’t find evidence of Housing First programs in small cities, and if I do I’d like to investigate how the programs integrate with the other support services that are needed.
Let’s test it here Don. Let’s find a $500-700k revenue stream, limit it to five years, partner with the Community and Regional Development program at UC Davis to rigorously evaluate it, and then see if we want to continue the funding beyond that based on the results. A $25 per year parcel tax would yield approximately $700k (the amount of the open space parcel tax). We could scale the program to fit that money, assess whether, over time, that is sufficient, track outcomes on participants, examine areas lacking in resources and see if/how we might leverage this City commitment to attract other, one-time monies.
This is an area we can innovate in at this time. Our police are already innovating by making their one new FTE this year be a social worker who will conduct outreach to the homeless population of Davis, given that the police are often the first responders.
How much would we pay our “partner”, or would UCD do it pro bono in the spirit of research?
Jim
Your comment has made me curious. On several occasions we have discussed housing first programs. In a number of those conversations, I have shared with you my belief that the best of these are not isolated housing programs but are a means of providing stability while helping the individual to engage with other services. Your comment today leads me to believe that you either have not understood, or do not agree with my point. The question is, what experience have you had that leads you to believe that all “housing first” programs are the same and of no use ?
Tia,
There are lots of studies on this subject already. If you look the one Don posted yesterday it is typical for what I have seen.
At the time of this evaluation, the project was staffed with 16 full-time equivalent staff members, including a project manager, residential counsellors, clinical support specialists, a nurse and on-call counsellors. Residents were chronically homeless individuals with alcohol problems (N= 75)
We are looking at a staffing ratio of 5:1. Now in a typical continuum model the detox/recovery phase may have a similar staffing ratio but after 28 days or so the patients got to a transitional living situation with more like a 10:1 and then to AFL or similar with more like 20:1. In this program it is 5:1 in perpetuity which is very expensive. If you have to build the facility you may be looking at costs of $4K/month patient forever. This is a lot of money.
What do you get for the money? Since HF is not designed to “rehabilitate” people they use different endpoints. Abstinence, employment, etc. are not part of the goals so they are not measured. Here are some quotes from the report:
“The same resident later noted that he accepted a place in this project“… just to be out of the streets … They said we don’t stop you from drinking. You can drink, smoke, whatever. I said, ‘Yeah, that’ll be fine.’”
“You don’t have to get drunk, just enough to go down, lay down, take a good, nice sleep…. Maintain. That’s it.”
Now Robb knows more about the politics of Davis than I do and maybe people are willing to pay money so people can “can drink, smoke, whatever” inside. However I think I know enough about Davis to be pretty certain that nobody is going to stand for a facility next to them where people are engaging in “drink, smoke, whatever”.
Jim
I would refer you to comments made about risk reduction. Homelessness is usually a multifactorial situation. There are rare exceptions such as mine 35 years ago in which I chose to live out of my van to save money for medical school. However, for the majority there will be multiple issues such as you alluded to. People’s situations are not static. Even if an individual starts a new path only seeking a safe space in which to drink or do drugs does not mean that will remain their only motivation. This simple step of providing a safe place may provide the motivation to take the next step, and then the next towards independence. Even if it does not, the individual is still off the street, not urinating in public or looking “threatening” to passersby. There are many possible levels of benefit, both for the individual and the community.
I am strongly supportive of a limited pilot project such as Robb is suggesting.
Tia,
We will have to disagree. Where are you going to put it?
Tia – I strongly support this program and will note that it is part of Davis’ “New Pathways” housing first program. I will also note, in light of what I wrote yesterday, that all the money for this program and ancillary services (vouchers, case management, temporary housing) is one-time grant money.
Robb
I see these two programs as complimentary. Is the Pathways to Employment a formal, economically linked program or are they “part of” as in the sense of aspirationally linked ?
They are part of the same program and the City received c $250k over three years from Sutter as a primary source of funding. There are additional funds from the County but I do not have access to that information where I am right now.
I offer a small correction to your comment, Robb. The spirit of the Davis Downtown board decision to provide program matching funds is for annual renewal. DD is in this for the long haul and will continue to seek means to support the program.
Thanks for letting me know. I was referring to City funding.
A variation on this approach might be to have merchants have a collection box in their businesses. The proceeds collected could go to the local shelter.
“Shelter”, is a short term tourniquet to prevent immediate threat to safety… winter and summer… “housing” is a good bandage, but is not “curative”. Treatments of the underlying wounds is not easy, and can be expensive.
“Shelter” relieves ‘guilt’ for those who provide it… similar for ‘housing’… makes the ‘problem’ less obvious, and folk can go on with their happy, content, oblivious lives…
What will we choose?
Howard,
Housing First has become successful by the simple of expedient of moving the goal line. Hard objectives like abstinence, employment, becoming self-supporting, avoiding contact with the police, etc have been rejected. The single metric is “are they under a roof”? Using this end point, regardless of what they are doing under the roof, HF calls a success.
So, are you agreeing with me or challenging my post as incorrect?
Unclear…
Seems to me there are two key questions here:
1. Is it better to have a roof or not have a roof?
2. If a person has a house, are other issues more treatable?
Howard I agree.
1. Is it better to have a roof or not have a roof?
2. If a person has a house, are other issues more treatable?
3. Is it better for someone who likes to smoke meth to do so in across the railroad tracks for free or next door to me in a place I need to pay for?
4. If a person has a house and an income to buy drugs why would they want to stop?
5. Of the problems we face as a community is building a resort for tweekers our most pressing need?
6. By supplying free housing that Davis homeowners have to pay for through higher parcel taxes are we just becoming a magnet for more homeless?
Jim: if it is better that a person has a roof over their head, then using that as a metric is a reasonable. Then the second question becomes, does putting a roof over someone’s head make their conditions more realistically treatable? I think it does. I think it’s very hard to deal with underlying addiction and mental illness, if the individual is housing-insecure.
You seem to be complaining that we’re not dealing with every single problem in one-fell swoop, but I feel that the latter is tantamount to paralysis.
If people are better off with a roof over their head, then that has to be step one.
“Jim: if it is better that a person has a roof over their head, then using that as a metric is a reasonable. Then the second question becomes, does putting a roof over someone’s head make their conditions more realistically treatable? ”
If that is true why do HF studies generally omit these endpoints? Modesty?
“I think it’s very hard to deal with underlying addiction and mental illness, if the individual is housing-insecure.”
I think you have this backward. Most people became homeless through their mental state. They were not born like this. A question for you, are you willing to accept tweekers who are actively using and uncontrolled schizophrenics as your new next door neighbors?
“You seem to be complaining that we’re not dealing with every single problem in one-fell swoop, but I feel that the latter is tantamount to paralysis.”
There has to be a path to a better future for both the person and the community. Otherwise what is the point?
I’m pretty sure I’ve had them as my next door neighbors at times. The difference was they had a place to live.
I think there is an upside for both the person and the community by putting roofs over people’s heads and getting them off the street. I actually it’s not the perfect solution, but it’s better than the status quo.
So David, the city taxes us to get one group off the street just to have them replaced by another group moving in once they know Davis will be providing for them. Where does it end? More and more taxation because we have more and more homeless?
Jim – Your characterization of housing first as moving the goal is off. There are “hard objectives.” Getting a roof over a head is merely a first step.
For those who don’t want to see their tax dollars going to pay for a housing first approach… I hear you loud and clear. So, what do you want the City to do?
Please come out clearly and state what you want us to do about the challenges I laid out in the article yesterday. I am all ears.
But, if you say “just get rid of them,” that is neither feasible nor any kind of solution. I am open to problem solving here. And, we are not choosing housing first because we don’t want to deal with the issue, we are choosing it because there is a strong evidence base that it works.
Don’s question about “scale” is a reasonable one. I think we should create an evidence base here in Davis.
Keith’s assertion that such services “attract” more homeless individuals has no basis in reality. EVERY City in California has citizens who believe that ANY services provided acts as a magnet. People are homeless in Davis largely because Davis, as a City, is their home. Many grew up here or have lived here for decades. The “magnet” fear is unfounded.
David,
A question for you, are you willing to accept tweekers who are actively using and uncontrolled schizophrenics as your new next door neighbors?
That’s a third question. If we house them, where is that appropriate location.
To answer your question… As far as I know, we don’t have any housing restrictions on where people can live. That means that realistically speaking, I don’t who is living in a given place or what their mental status is or whether they are drug addicts. So I view your comment as prejudicial. Is it better for people with meth addiction to live on the streets or in a home? I think in a home is the clear answer. Your question asks for me to be a NIMBY. I reject that.
David, you didn’t answer Jim’s question.
“Your question asks for me to be a NIMBY. I reject that.”
I will note your answer contains some industrial-grade equivocation which I presume reflects what you know is the reality versus your ideals.
This population is unstable and dangerous to both themselves and those around them which is why summer strolls along the railroad tracks are not popular. Given that HF does not change their substance consumption what do you see changing the risk profile?
My calculation is based on the notion that there is risk leaving the population on the street. I believe that as a whole both society and the population will be better with roofs over their heads and that efforts to aid the population will better succeed if they have roofs over their heads than without.
I’m sure at some point many people might have lived next door to someone who had mental problems or were using drugs. But have you ever lived next door to a house where it was designated to house several people who have those problems?
Kind of a half-way house?
“I’m pretty sure I’ve had them as my next door neighbors at times. The difference was they had a place to live.”
Don those were people who were functioning enough to maintain a place to live. Not directly comparable to who we are discussing.
“So, what do you want the City to do?”
More of the “Pathways to Employment” type of program.
Jim… my take on your 9:13 questions:
1. Depends… best is having an option. I’ve spent nights under the stars, in good weather, but it was my informed choice. I was in control. With high or low temperatures, inclement weather, it would be different.
2. Depends… if the housing gets you away from your ‘enablers’, increases your chances of doing what you may have set out to do… get clean/sober/healthy… easier to do so if you are not in a ‘survival mode’. Otherwise, not so much.
3. Obviously, would be better not to do meth… but given the two, RR tracks is better.
4. Some do… they need our support, as they realize there is no “life” in that life. Others do not… we can open doors, even with expectations, but they need to propel themselves over the threshold. Ultimately, we cannot ‘fix’ people… but we can support those who truly are committed to fix themselves.
5. No.
Robb Davis
No, I don’t think it’s unfounded.
https://theaggie.org/2009/04/22/homeless-population-in-davis-continues-to-grow/
I remember several years ago that there was a homeless guy downtown that sold a homeless flyer. If I remember right it cost a dollar. I once bought one while having coffee outside of Starbucks. To the best of my memory the flyer in part went into why the homeless considered Davis a go to place with things like it’s weather, the generosity of its residents, good panhandling, free handouts, etc……
Keith O – Very interesting that you brought out an old quote from “Sellman.” Interestingly, I saw him just last week. He is clean, sober, and living independently these days (and has for about 5 years now).
A true Davis success story. We should all be proud because this community helped him get to where he is.
And we should endeavor to do the same for others who are down and out like him.
Robb Davis,
Great, I’m happy for him. But you missed the point, he was from out of town and he talked of how other homeless see Davis, as a go-to destination. So if we start taxing ourselves for more giveaways in my opinion it will make us that much more of a magnet for more homeless.
Gee, Keith, are you not from “out of town”? What is the grace period where one becomes a “townie”? I’d set the bar at 37 years, continuous, or 42 years with a break, or born/raised in Davis. You?
Obvious that Will Rogers never met you…
The question of whether homeless people are “attracted” to Davis is somewhat moot as they do move around regardless of what we do. They may stay longer if the find Davis to be convivial.
Nationally the chronic homeless population is decreasing while in CA it is increasing. CA now has 40% of the chronic homeless so they are coming to CA from somewhere.
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
On the other hand, Sacramento and other nearby communities are creating similar program.s
In the early 1980’s I rode the rails and at times traveled with true transients (hobos). They knew the towns that were friendly, and the towns that were not, and where the services were. The towns that were friendly is where they went.
Love or hate the fact . . . Davis is a magnet. Transient populations go to where they are treated well, and word spreads.
Gee Howard, when I came here I didn’t panhandle on the streets and come here for the free handouts.
You act as though being homeless, panhandling, dealing with addiction and mental illness is all fun and games.
“I didn’t panhandle on the streets and come here for the free handouts.”
Sounds like a “missed opportunity”
Yes, and it soon might be an even better opportunity if homeowners get taxed to supply free housing.
Where did I say that? The point was that by Davis being so welcoming to homeless it has become a magnet for other homeless.
I said act as though, not that you stated. Davis isn’t the only city in the region dealing with homelessness or moving toward the Housing First Approach.
Show me where “I acted as though”. Otherwise quit your projecting.
“when I came here I didn’t panhandle on the streets and come here for the free handouts.”
That implies that panhandling and asking for “free” handouts is somehow easy or a form of laziness.
Maybe that’s what it implies to you. Once again you’re projecting.
So a homeowner isn’t allowed to have a different opinion than you that they don’t feel they should be levied yet another new tax to house the homeless? That they maybe don’t want homeless halfway houses in their neighborhoods? That creating such programs might lead to Davis becoming more of a magnet for the homeless?
“So a homeowner isn’t allowed to have a different opinion than you”
I made no comment on that point
I did not miss your point Keith. But the data does not support your 1-data-point “evidence.” First, Davis has the lowest per capita homeless population of the three Yolo County cities. Second, over half of the unsheltered homeless individuals (with known duration) living in Davis have been here 7 years or more. Third, of the 100 homeless individuals in a recent survey who responded to the question of why they came to Davis, two-thirds were here because this is home, they have family or friends here, they work here or they go to school here–or, because they were fleeing domestic violence.
This paints a picture of a population that moves to a place for the same reasons most people do. There is nothing unique about Davis that makes as any more of a “magnet” than Woodland or West Sacramento. Yes, it is a safe community, and both homeless and housed individuals appreciate that. But there are MANY factors that bring people to this town and the simple explanation that they come here because Davis provides more or better services or other Davis-specific factors simply does not stand up to examination.
I would urge everyone to stop turning a complex issue into a series of simplistic assertions. Such assertions hide far more than they reveal about the issues.
Robb Davis, how many of these other communities that you cite are proposing a parcel tax on homeowners in order to house the homeless?
I believe you are asking the wrong question…
Last year Sutter awarded a $233,000 matching grant to Davis to provide housing. Davis wasn’t alone: “The Placer County Board of Supervisors took a similar action to receive a $1 million matching grant that will be used to purchase housing units and fund rental subsidies for the chronically homeless. In September, Sutter Health also provided a $400,000 matching grant to the City of Sacramento to ensure the Salvation Army homeless shelter could transition from a night shelter to a 24/7 shelter.”
David, you answered a question I presented to Robb Davis with an irrelevant reply.
Good for me. My point is that there are many other communities putting money into a Housing First model, Davis is not alone in that respect. You seem to be believe that putting a parcel tax funding stream behind the project will compel more people to come here, Robb’s data suggests otherwise.
Howard
““Shelter” relieves ‘guilt’ for those who provide it… similar for ‘housing’”.
I agree with the statement as it stands. However both “shelter” and “housing” provide something more. One of the comments that I saw frequently on the survey is that the visitor to downtown does not “feel safe” with the homeless & their animals on the street. However, these commenters most likely have a safe place to which they can retreat. This is often not true for the homeless or unsheltered. What shelter/housing also provides is a temporary safe space for some very vulnerable members of our community who may be preyed upon in much the same way that the housed only fear.
I agree that we have traditionally relied upon “band aides” where major structural change is needed. However, that does not mean that a band aide will never be helpful. It does not mean that all efforts are only so that people can “feel good” about themselves although that may be a side effect. And it certainly does not mean that we should not apply a band aide while working on more definitive treatment.
And we both know, Tia, that tourniquets have their place. But if you leave them on too long, there is generally tissue death, and amputation becomes the only viable option.
Bandaids have limits… if the wound is not debrided, cleansed, antibiotics not given, bandaids just make the first aider feel better about themself… not really doing anything for the ‘wounded’.
I never said tourniquets or bandaids are not useful… quite the contrary… think it is akin to ‘triage’… but only a fool would be satisfied with their effectiveness, IMHO. And feel free to “move on” to their own lives.
You also chose (cherry-picking?) to ignore,
You talk about UBI… you talk about ‘housing’ by the City taxpayers… the past three weeks, I’ve been ‘walking the talk‘. Et tu? I don’t try to compel others to finance my “talk”… I tend to lead by example, not politics, which I tend to abhor. I well have no followers, but it is a path I feel compelled to travel…
The road less taken, if you will.. my path, one I would not impose on others…
I once drove two hours down a dirt road in Arizona. Never saw another human being on this road on the Navajo reservation. This road — less traveled — petered out a few tens of feet short of the east rim of the Grand Canyon. No fences, no rangers, just a 1500′ vertical drop, to the first ledge.
Sometimes the road less traveled leads to a cliff. Don’t drive at night unless you know where you are.
Good points… will carry my Garmin…
Alan
Loved the story. Can see different interpretations. One would be that perhaps the best people to address the problem of homelessness are not those who have never experienced anything even close to it. My experience doesn’t count since it was voluntary with a definite goal in mind placing me firmly in the minority of the unsheltered.
That is part of the reason that I especially like the idea of Pathways to Employment which if successful will involve mentoring by the more advanced participants.
Howard
We all “impose” our preferences on others. We do it through our political actions and our vote. Some of us are more straightforward about it than others. You participate just as I do on a largely political blog, and yet you say you abhor politics. I love political debate and political activity and will make no presence otherwise. As for walking the walk, I currently donate time and money to projects I see as valuable. I also advocate for taxation to lift some of the burden as I recognize as Robb noted at his talk that voluntary efforts are inadequate to meet the needs that our citizens seem to want met as measured by the survey in which many wanted the housing problem solved, but by the city council. We may abhor politics, but we cannot demand action by our government if we are unwilling to pay for such action.
Thanks Tia for your article about Pathways to Employment. People in transistion programs who are ready for change are exactly the folks who can benefit from this kind of support the most.
>Is it better for someone who likes to smoke meth to do so in across the railroad tracks for free or next door to me
In my case one in the same.
Looks like we solved the location problem.
Donation parking meters idea seems a tad offensive imho.
Hi Delia
That is something that would never have occurred to me. Can you explain what you see as offensive ?