Paul’s Place, which offers opportunities for people suffering from homelessness to find a place to live, and gives support to help people get the services they need to rebuild their lives.
“Recognizing the potential of the 1111 H Street site given its size and location, Yolo County Housing offered its vision for vertical living, incorporating micro-dwelling units along with a new and improved facility,” it states in the project narrative.
The project has officially been on hold as the groups working to bring this vision forward have been raising the millions needed to fund the project said Bill Pride, Executive Director of Davis Communities Meals, one of two nonprofits joining forces to help create an innovative solution to homelessness in Davis.
The site is currently a single-story house with a resource center, and one bathroom and shower for day use along with limited community and kitchen facilities. There is one bedroom with four beds and a bathroom to house four women, and three bedrooms with a bathroom to house eight men. There is also a staff bedroom with a bathroom.
They are promising to turn it into a four-story house. The first floor would have an expanded resource center and two emergency shelters with double-occupancy bedrooms and 1 ¾ bathroom.
The second floor will have 10 transitional housing units – each a single occupancy bedroom, a shared kitchen, living and laundry room, three bathrooms and two half-baths, with two staff offices and a staff bedroom.
The third floor would have nine single permanent supportive housing, single -occupant fully equipped micro-dwellings. The fourth floor would have the same.
As the narrative explains: “Located on the third and fourth floors, the 18-permanent supportive housing micro-dwellings represent the most innovative component of the facility. Each adaptable micro-
dwelling will feature a 300-square foot furnished living space.”
Bill Pride explained to the Vanguard that the concept came when Reid Youmans was approached by a few homeless folks near his Olive Drive office and he checked out the facility on H Street, and said, “You guys need a place over there.”
At the same time, the Davis Opportunity Village, another non-profit partner in this project, wanted to build “tiny homes” in the city.
That group, Bill Pride, Reid Youmans, and then Mayor Robb Davis came up with what’s now called “Paul’s Place.”
“We’re going to be knocking down the existing facility that we’ve had for 25 years and rebuilding it so that we have an expanded resource center, a new and improved transitional housing program and two floors of permanent housing for folks,” Mr. Pride explained.
He said, “(Paul’s Place) is going to expand our ability to serve people better.”
As he described, the current building has between 35 and 70 folks a day going to the resource center. These are folks who need to do things like wash their clothes, take showers, use the bathroom. In the current facility “we have one bathroom and one shower and they’re both located in the same room.
“We have 20 people signing up for showers every morning,” he said. “They have to wait an hour, sometimes two, to take a show before it’s their turn.”
He added that “we have two washers and two dryers for all the people that want to wash clothing and that type of thing.”
The first floor of the new building will be the resource center, Bill Pride explained. “That is going to have more showers, more bathrooms. More laundry facilities – more washers, more dryers,” he said. “People are going get their needs met in a much faster way.”
Bill Pride said most of these folks are homeless, but some are low income who come in for food referrals, rental assistance, and a whole range of other services.
Besides the resource center, they currently have the transitional housing program.
“Currently it has 12 beds – eight for men, four for women,” Bill Pride explained. The new program will reduce the number of beds from 12 to 10. “The big change for me is that right now we have three bedrooms housing four people (each), so there’s four people per bedroom, all living in bunk beds.
“That’s not an ideal situation, mostly folks are adults… up to 65 years of age,” he explained. “The new building is going to have 10 transitional housing rooms but they are all going to be individual rooms for everybody.”
As the narrative explains, “the proposed bedrooms are single occupancy units. The benefits of single occupancy compared to cohabitation include a less restrictive intake process, more effective case management, and a faster transition to permanent housing.”
He also talked about the third and fourth floors, which will be micro-housing units.
Again there will be nine such units on each floor, with each unit being about 300 square feet. It will be fully furnished.
As the narrative notes: “This efficient use of space is particularly relevant in Davis where housing availability is limited.”
The narrative adds: “Utilizing Housing First principles and a low barrier program model, DCMH staff will offer each resident on-site supportive services, which includes intensive case management.”
Bill Pride explained they will be supportive housing beds operated “the way we do at Cesar Chavez.
“There is going to be staff on site to help folks, give them any kind of assistance they may need,” he said. “We’re here to help the folks that move in, stay housed. That may mean dealing with some kind of crisis situation.”
He added, “Our goal is once folks move in – they stay.”
To qualify they will have to be homeless. They will also pay a nominal rent perhaps $250 to $300 per month.
“It’s going to be affordable to folks on SSI and other kinds of fixed incomes,” he said.
Funding for this project is through private donations – the biggest being Sutter Health Foundation which has put up a $2.5 million matching grant plan. There is also Partnership Health Plan which has donated $750,000. The balance of the money is coming from local individuals.
Currently they are at $2 million in donations, but need a total of $4 to $5 million to get the building built.
To run the project, “we are going to use co-founding sources, but we are also trying to raise enough money to establish an endowment so that we can make sure we have enough money to operate the program over the years.”
They have the need for operation and maintenance, but also for program support.
The goal is to get the planning process back underway in the next two to four weeks, then hopefully bring it before the city council by October and November.
If the fundraising continues as planned, knocking down the old building next year will be likely, with opening the new one in 2021.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Utilizing Housing First principles and a low barrier program model”
Pacifico redux.
Definition: Housing First programs address chronic homelessness by providing rapid access to permanent housing, without a pre-condition of treatment, along with ongoing support services such as crisis intervention, needs assessment, and case management. A form of permanent supportive housing, the program usually serves individuals who are chronically homeless and have persistent mental illness or problems with substance abuse and addiction.
Note the highlighted portion. Except for a very limited number of beds, Pacifico does NOT have ongoing support services or case management for residents.
On the other hand the City of Davis contracting through DCMH, using funds from Sutter and the County and with support from Yolo County Housing, has a run a housing first program for 2 years. This program has placed 12 people in permanent housing with case management. All continue to be permanently housed. The only constraint on the program is lack of vouchers to house more. All of these people were moved directly off the streets.
Before someone starts describing housing first as “enabling”, they should be careful to understand what housing first means. Case management is the key.
Jim’s statement is factually incorrect.
I will be offering, in the weeks ahead, a summary of evidence for the efficacy of housing first (over other programs such as “treatment first” or “transitional housing.”
“Someone” just did. See below.
Robb D.: from one of the central early case studies of the Housing First model (see link below), one of the key findings is that implementation details are key. It seems to me that it is a big question if Yolo County Housing Authority has the track record to properly supervise and implement such a program/project. Certainly, reports of the bad management of Pacifico raise significant concerns in this regard.
“ The implementation of Housing First for actively substance using individuals entails a significant shift in perspective and practice and requires careful selection of agencies, deliberate program planning, assistance with startup, and ongoing guidance, technical assistance, and reinforcement.
The good intentions of public agencies—coupled with guidance documents, technical assistance, and training—do not always translate into faithful implementation of Housing First. Our findings suggest the need for more careful selection of agencies to implement this type of housing, as well as more clearly defined models for implementation, including the integration of guidance and oversight by public agencies. One means to improve the selection of agencies might be to require, in solicitations or Request for Proposals (RFP), evidence that the agency as a whole supports and has a basic understanding of the Housing First model and philosophy, as well as concrete, auditable examples of how the agency’s administration and senior staff will support effective program implementation.”
https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/report_casafullreport_712.pdf.pdf
Such concerns are not only significant, they’re also obvious.
Robb you said the same thing about Pacifio and we saw how that turned out. What was the dead girl’s name? Do you dare write it?
Yes, and by extension, Natalie Corona died at the hands of the entire City of Davis…
Your logic, isn’t.
El wrongo as to causality.
But plays into your apparent ‘agenda’…
If you design a program where people can continue to use meth then overdose is a foreseeable outcome.
Not only foreseeable, it may also hasten death. Is it possible to send an entire city to an Al-Anon meeting? An individual or family not taking deeply to hear the concept of enabling is a tragedy. An entire town not doing so is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I’m sorry, there is no word strong enough to describe this.
Giving aid to an active addict is a fool’s errand. Spending taxpayer money to enable this is scandalous. But those who believe in “housing first” will see us critics as the ones in the wrong, because enabling psychosis is so prevalent in human nature, and those enable seem on the surface to be “doing good”.
I was for this, until I read it is “housing first”. RD’s heart is in the right place, as are many others involved. But “housing first” is a form of enabling, and the approach is dead wrong. Also, for all the flowery story about this one person panhandling by In-n-Out, watch the panhandling crowd pattern anytime. The majority panhandle until they have enough money, then walk a few feet east to the liquor store. I have watched this pattern over and over. * For another take on the so-called ‘homeless’ situation, watch “Seattle is Dying”, available on YouTube, a one-hour special produced by KOMO TV. Also, google “Homeless Industrial Complex” and read up. At least consider that all is not what “they” say it is after watching and reading my suggestions.
Thankfully, the building itself will be useful for homeless once the misguided approach is abandoned.
The Homeless Industrial Complex – California Globe
https://californiaglobe.com/uncategorized/the-homeless-industrial-complex/
“Seattle is Dying” – KOMO TV – Seattle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw&t=226s
Watch the entire thing, there are alternate approaches at the end.
Some truth, some errors… not all the panhandlers are homeless… I’d estimate 45-50% are not… not all homeless are panhandlers… some just root for recyclables… public or private trash bins…
Truth is most will take any money they get, and use it for ‘drugs’, be it alcohol or MJ, or other.
Truth is most homeless have some combination of MH, ‘drug’ issues… yet, there are some homeless who have neither.
Errors include housing, as a first step, can’t turn things around; housing will likely turn things around…
Rocket science is a child’s game compared to the homeless situation… physics is much easier than fathoming the human psyche…
Panhandling is a different phenomenon… ever heard of Romas?
WM, not talking about panhandling. I’m talking about “wet” housing, giving government or private aid to active addicts.
Understood… worked with a guy who said, appeared, to want to be “dry”… 12 weeks of effort… kept seeing signs of hope/progress… 2 stints in a re-hab environment…
No change… I get that… but can’t get past the idea that not to try is wrong… but to have false allusions as to outcomes is wrong, as well…
To paraphrase a famous quote, “a society’s reach may exceed its grasp, but what is hope for?”
But I fully understand your main point… no magic bullet unless someone really wants to change, and even then, no guarantees… still a crap shoot… but still, I’d like to roll the dice, place my bet financially, knowing the ‘house’ will likely be the only winner… but sometimes, there are good outcomes… that is what makes the risk acceptable…
Of course, there are other alternatives… ignore, or “shoot on sight”… just can’t go there…
Some thoughts on the foregoing
Jim H, I have no idea what dead person you are talking about nor where I claimed that Pacifico is a housing first approach. In terms of case management, it clearly is not. If I stated that, I was wrong but I never remember saying it. Again, please stop the unhelpful oblique references and state exactly what death you are talking about
Rik, YCH will not be running programming at Paul’s Place, DCMH will. YCH is consulting on building layout, construction and maintenance issues. DCMH has successfully run Cesar Chavez for years. Have there been some failures there? Yes, some people have had to leave. Talk to community members about the waiting list for CC and you will discern that it is a success.
Alan, I have watched Seattle is Dying (twice). It is framed narrowly with the solution of incarceration assumed from the outset. It downplays the role of mental health and fails to account for clear empirical results that community-based services are FAR superior to incarceration. Yes, it is biased against housing first but fails to note that Seattle is NOT implementing that approach. If incarceration is the answer then I don’t know why everyone from the Public Defender, to the DA to our very own police chief agree that incarceration is NOT the answer to homelessness.
Alan your comments about my “heart” are condescending (and exactly what you wrote in the Enterprise) and deny the clear evidence for the value of this approach. I am, first and foremost, a public health professional and this is a public health problem solved with evidence-based approaches.
RD, I do think you have a good heart. And channeled in many areas, and in much of the work that you have done in your life, you heart has done great things. That literally was not meant to be condescending, but to recognize the very giving and heartful person that you are.
I disagree in the most strident terms with “wet” housing, and I think you and thousands of others promoting this are dead wrong.
*SPOILER ALERT*
(Semi-humorous reference to an earlier exchange with Alan, in which he didn’t want to give away the ending.)
Robb stated “Rik, YCH will not be running programming at Paul’s Place, DCMH will. YCH is consulting on building layout, construction and maintenance issues. DCMH has successfully run Cesar Chavez for years. Have there been some failures there? Yes, some people have had to leave. Talk to community members about the waiting list for CC and you will discern that it is a success.”
Thanks for the clarification. On YCH’s role. In regards to DCMH (and other involved partners), what is their experience and qualifications for running a Housing First program for the target population for this project?
I will repeat the guidance I cited earlier from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASAColumbiaTM) and the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH). Perhaps you can specifically address how this project checks these boxes (or not)? For example, will there be “integration of guidance and oversight by public agencies”? And, since I have not seen any evaluation of DCMH’s management of CC Plaza, make sure to focus on “concrete, auditable examples of how the agency’s administration and senior staff will support effective program implementation” for a Housing First program. Your metric of the success of CC Plaza as the length of the waiting list does not seem sufficient in this regard—I would say that speaks more to the need/demand for low-income housing rather than whether the project has been successfully managed or not .
“The implementation of Housing First for actively substance using individuals entails a significant shift in perspective and practice and requires careful selection of agencies, deliberate program planning, assistance with startup, and ongoing guidance, technical assistance, and reinforcement.
The good intentions of public agencies—coupled with guidance documents, technical assistance, and training—do not always translate into faithful implementation of Housing First. Our findings suggest the need for more careful selection of agencies to implement this type of housing, as well as more clearly defined models for implementation, including the integration of guidance and oversight by public agencies. One means to improve the selection of agencies might be to require, in solicitations or Request for Proposals (RFP), evidence that the agency as a whole supports and has a basic understanding of the Housing First model and philosophy, as well as concrete, auditable examples of how the agency’s administration and senior staff will support effective program implementation.”
https://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/report_casafullreport_712.pdf.pdf
This is one report by one agency. In a comment in the Davisite I cited two randomized trials of Housing First (HF) projects. One found no difference between HF and routine care and the other found some advantage for HF. Housing First has only been around for about 15 years so I would say that we have not had time to really evaluate the full impact. That being said, Housing First requires as Rik points out clear and careful implementation from agencies experienced in the basic premises and resources to put the programs in place. Also, Rik points to an evaluation of housing programs in NYC for homeless individuals who have a primary substance use problem (see the report at page 3: “What is Population E”.) Housing First is not primarily focused on substance use treatment. Secondly, the homeless population is very heterogeneous and has many individuals for whom substance abuse is not the primary problem. Yes, rates are higher in this population but that goes with the territory (similar to mental health problems).
You challenge RD’s use of waiting list as an outcome. What outcomes would you suggest? I have a couple that I think might be helpful: rate of residents who pass through and obtain permanent housing; the rate of residents who obtain work (of any kind); the rate of those who utilize social services while in-house. A number of these metrics are available from DCMH’s website which has their annual reports (here’s a link to the 2018 report: https://daviscommunitymeals.org/2018-annual-report/)
Robert: I was hoping that the DCMH “Annual Report” you linked to would actually be a report. Instead it is a webpage that merely has the following two entries about CC Plaza:
Provided permanent supportive housing to 22 formerly homeless individuals
Provided permanent supportive housing to 42 individuals with special needs.
I referenced the report from CASA Columbia not because the target population is the same, but because of the guidance provided in terms of the due diligence and oversight required to successfully implement Housing First programs.
There seems to be a lack of information with which to evaluate how well DCMH has done in implementing its current programs and how qualified and experienced they are to run a Housing First program. Hopefully Robb Davis will be more forthcoming with this information than he has been.
We (household) support the effort… fully knowing it will not be perfect, not a panacea, but more along the lines of “better to light one candle, rather than curse the darkness”… this candle should be lit, IMNSHO.
A homeless person built a wood shelter behind my neighbor’s wood fence, the buried the shelter in six feet of dry brush in a vain attempt to ‘hide’ it. When I went by a night, the people inside had ‘lit a candle’. Oh, no, that wasn’t metaphoric, they literally had a candle burning inside their wooden fort, next to a wooden fence, inside a pile of dry brush. Had that candle caught the place on fire, it would have threatened at least four houses nearby. I called the police, and they came out, then told me their hands were tied because they couldn’t move the people for 48 hours. I said their was a fire inside! They couldn’t do anything. After the police left I checked again, and the candle was still burning inside. So I called the fire department. And I was told they couldn’t do anything for 48 hours as well. I said, “This is an immediate fire hazard!”. They wouldn’t do anything.
I will not tell you how the matter was resolved, but it was resolved.
Our fire department enforces fire code in buildings all over town. The housed and businessed have to abide. But someone burning a candle inside dry brush adjacent to houses with up-to-code fire alarms could burn down because our entire government structure is so terrified by the Homeless Industrial Complex and their most-vile cohorts, the M****R F*****G Homeless Advocate Lawyers, some of the most vile beings I have ever had the displeasure of crossing paths with.
Wake up people. All is not what it seems.
I can’t help but wonder about a possible “connection” between these two statements. 😉
All that’s missing from this anecdote is Mrs. O’Leary’s cow. Not sure how it contributes constructively to the discussion. Although, perhaps if there were a Paul’s Place for this person to go ….
Eric: Despite my attempt at humor (above), I wouldn’t discount the situation as described by Alan.
I also believe that “housing first” will likely consistently create problems for nearby neighbors. And, unlike temporary homeless camps, housing-first facilities are essentially permanent and officially “allowed”.
“I will not tell you how the matter was resolved, (Shame or fear of prosecution?) but it was resolved.” Obviously extra-legally. What’d you do? Turn hoses on them, big dogs, trained burrowing owls?
To the critics of Housing First: You do understand that rejecting Housing First as one of the approaches to homelessness, mental health, and drug use, does not mean the problem goes away. But instead of being housed with access to case management, crisis intervention, and other support services, this population remains in the community, without any supervision or supports. How is this a better or safer alternative?
(And I’ll take the “M****R F*****G Homeless Advocate Lawyers” over the naysayers whose contribution to addressing homelessness/mental health issues is to recommend watching a video any day.)
And this case it means taking 12 beds of housing which are mostly in harmony with the neighborhood and reducing it to 10 beds to accomadate people who are too crazy and badly behaved to live in a dorm.
ProTip: If the other homeless people do not want to live with them the neighbors will not either.
No thanks.
I live in that neighborhood on 12th Street and I STRONGLY support this solution over the current situation. You are ignoring the homeless who already live on the street on H and the rail line. Where do you think those who are badly behaved are already living? Do they appear out of thin air? You need to make sense here, and that’s not happening right now.
Apparently the opponents of harm reduction strategies to substance abuse think that people being on the street or in jail is preferable to providing any public monies for services. How this is supposed to work as a substance abuse strategy, I don’t really understand. Abstinence-only programs don’t have a strong track record, from what I understand.
I am unaware of opposition from the neighbors about this project. It seems like a good location to me, based on what I know of the history of the site. I prefer to keep an open mind about the whole thing, and personally believe that substance abuse and homelessness are pretty complicated issues that require a variety of strategies. Matching the user to the best treatment program for that individual seems important.
This is one strategy.
Not all homeless people are meth users.
I see no reason to question the motives of the project proponents.
So, unlike school parcel taxes, this will depend “on the kindness of strangers”… yet, it seems a bunch of the public oppose, on philosophical/personal motivations.
Ironically, given the ‘neighborhood’, it isn’t “new”, but an ‘intensification’, perhaps… perhaps the City should just disapprove, and take efforts to remove the existing ‘cancer’… as some seem to perceive the homeless… who knows… might well need ‘excised’… with follow-up ‘radiation’ treatment, lest we become a new, smaller, Seattle…
Bill
Are you being serious or sarcastic?
Just happened across this article regarding Paul’s Place, and thought I’d post a link to it:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/homeless-housing-microunits-planned-for-davis-nonprofit/ar-AACOr4N
Ron you have illuminated the core value here. This project is not designed to help anyone, the current facility was already doing that. “Paul’s Place” is designed to bring acclaim to the promoters.
Jim – your comment is vile and untrue. The project will expand beds using an evidence-based approach that has been demonstrated to work. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the program, questioning the motives of those involved, and offering absolutely no constructive pathway for dealing with this nationwide challenge.
This will be my last comment to you on this matter. You have consistently led the charge here to dehumanize people who are largely born and raised in this town. You are not interested in workable solutions as far as I can see.
“You are not interested in workable solutions as far as I can see.”
What is wrong with what is already at 1111 H street?
The question I would ask is given what they are doing there now, what do you see the harm of serving more people’s needs at the new facility?
Go for it, JH, you are free now.
It won’t raise $5 million?
Demand far exceeds supply — a larger facility is needed.
I’ve worked at the place on 4 occasions: 1994 (Elevation Certificate for flood insurance), 2000 (another Elev Cert for an expansion), 2017 (boundary survey) and 2018 (pre-design survey for Paul’s Place). In 1994 and 2000 it was pretty quiet and didn’t seem crowded. In 2017 and 2018 it was overflowing with people waiting for showers and laundry facilities, and sometimes the crowding resulted in altercations. It was pretty chaotic. Replacing the current bubble-gum-and-baling-wire arrangement with an enlarged new facility and programming seems like a good idea to me.
Facility, yes. Wet, no.
Because we we prefer to have our substance abusers living on the streets and in our parks, without case management and access to other support services? How’s that approach working out?
I really don
t understand the logic of the objections here. Is it better to put people under housing than leaving them homeless. Is it better to give them services, than not give them services? What is the harm here
If I understand Alan correctly, he is only against making a facility available for those actively using meth. Robb said there will be case management. But what does that mean? Where do they continue to get meth to be case managed?
I think what Alan wants is that for meth users, the facility with case management should be prison where there is no meth. His argument is make prison better instead of making homeless shelter wet.
Edgar:
LOL:
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-death-row-drugs-20160824-snap-story.html
Enabling and societal co-dependency are very difficult concepts to grasp, I understand this. The idea goes against conventional wisdom, and what some would consider common decency. It almost seems backwards until one has faced it head-on in crisis in their own lives. The idea that it can mean some people will die is too much for many to bear (notwithstanding that some people will die either way).
In my opinion, ‘co-dependency’ is an outdated and pretty meaningless term, and providing social services to people who need them — regardless of their substance abuse issues — is not “enabling.” I think you are stuck in 1980’s terminology and thinking on this. You’re about one step removed from rock bottom mythology. I’m not saying you’re wrong with respect to some people in some situations. But I do question your certitude on this issue.
Probably the terminology I used is not helping the argument. Let me be clear: seeking out substance abusers who are not seeking help is a fools errand; doing so with taxpayer money is beyond fraud. The chronic mentally ill should be supported (including those abusing substances — yes, a difficult case-by-case diagnosis), and those who are in financial straits should get societal resources to get them back on their feet.
I spent some time in rail riding circles in my youth. The culture of the riders is very clear: a hobo is a traveler who takes care of themselves, a bum is a leech that feeds off of everyone else. In essence, society cannot throw our resources at the bums. Haters gonna hate, takers gonna take.
Jim
“This project is not designed ….”
What I am going to request is just that, a request. It is not an official Vanguard policy, it is my personal preference. I am 100% in favor of the free expression of ideas & beliefs. However, I believe subjective beliefs should not be expressed as though they were fact. Jim, I doubt you were on the design team for this project. If not, and no one secretly confided in you, I doubt you have any direct knowledge of the motivations of those involved. I also doubt you are clairvoyant. Therefore, I can only assume that what you wrote, while it may have been your honest opinion was written without any basis in fact. I would ask you to consider that spiteful personal attacks are less effective than facts or evidence in influencing how others perceive complex issues.
I pledge to give a $1000 donation to Paul’s Place, if the project abandons the philosophy of “wet” housing.
There are those here who can attest that I am a man of my word when it comes to such a pledge.
Money & Mouth in a shared space.
I am one who will definitely attest to Alan’s posit/statement,
And I match the pledge… in either event, but I have seen that it is often necessary to house first, then work on the substance issues (which, are indeed substantial), but even when you house first, no assurance we can (society and the individual) ‘solve’ the issues… crap shoot… win some, lose some… but as I recall, there is a slogan, ‘I may not win, but may I be brave in the attempt’… or something to that effect…
Alan is lucky… not thinking anyone here would publically attest to my credibility… admittedly, some have privately… doesn’t really matter to me…
Alan’s point is very valid… the likelihood of success is greatly increased, when someone is “sober”, and/or ‘taken the pledge’… orders of magnitude more likely… therefore, a good yardstick for ‘triage’ as to who is helped… but, if an individual commits to ‘healing’, folk should commit to assisting in that effort… only the individual can actually change things… all the rest of us can do is help them. Nothing more, nothing less…
Two cents…
Is it fair to say that while a wet facility may have a chance to create success stories, it is a certainty that it will attract drug dealers due to economics? For each success story, how many drug deals are added/reduced? Who has such study?
Edgar, why do you think that drug dealers would even come close to a place with lots of lights, a fair amount of street traffic, staff who are watchful, and police who are coming and going to bring folks to the services? Here’s an article that found that for one set of programs, Housing First was better than Treatment First on some outcomes related to substance abuse.
“Substance Use Outcomes Among Homeless Clients with Serious Mental Illness: Comparing Housing First with Treatment First Programs”
Abstract: The Housing First (HF) approach for homeless adults with serious mental illness has gained support as an alternative to the mainstream “Treatment First” (TF) approach. In this study, group differences were assessed using qualitative data from 27 HF and 48 TF clients. Dichotomous variables for substance use and substance abuse treatment utilization were created and examined using bivariate and logistic regression analyses. The HF group had significantly lower rates of substance use and substance abuse treatment utilization; they were also significantly less likely to leave their program. Housing First’s positive impact is contrasted with the difficulties Treatment First programs have in retaining clients and helping them avoid substance use and possible relapse. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2916946/pdf/nihms198104.pdf)
Edgar… listen carefully to Robert C… he speaks very logically, and factually… that doesn’t mean that no drugs will ever be delivered, just as there are no assurances that isn’t already happening… including in your own neighborhood…
Any increment would be de minimus, in my experience and view…
A comparison between housing first and treatment first is not relevant. The comparison should be housing first in an environment where the subject is free to get meth, and a housing first in one where the subject is not free to do so (HF at 1111 H versus HF at prison), where both subjects have the same quality of case management.
I didn’t say that drug dealers are going to the residents, I am saying if operated as a wet facility, the resident is getting drug and using them somewhere.
When I was at 1111 H (years ago), drugs were not allowed. It was part of intake requirement and random screening. Unless someone describe the details of the new intake requirement, I assume that the third and fourth floors can all be supporting users doing drugs permanently. No one described how a resident could be evicted by doing drugs. As far as I understand, they are not evicted as long as they keep having a way to pay for their room.
Unless they are making their own drug or ordering them online, they get the drug from somewhere. So the question is, would the facility be increasing or decreasing drug deals overall?
Here is a decent summary of some of the evaluation studies of Housing First programs: https://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/SO17p18.shtml
Thanks for that link Robert. While I am open to the idea of the housing first model, one of the key takeaways seems to be that implementation is key. And even studies that support some positive results in some areas such as housing stability (to be expected with fewer “rules”), don’t show improvements in terms of treatment outcomes.
For example, the following is from one of the three supporting studies cited in your link.
A Randomized Trial Examining Housing First in Congregate and Scattered Site Formats. Somers, et al.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168745#pone.0168745.ref043
“Notwithstanding these previous findings, the current results indicate that neither CHF [congregate housing first sites] or SHF [scattered housing first sites] were sufficient to mediate changes over 24 months in measures of quality of life, overall health, or psychiatric symptom severity, beyond what would be expected from prolonged homelessness with minimal supports. Attention is needed on adaptations to HF that stimulate change in these domains, and on identifying and acting on the factors that predict youth at risk for prolonged homelessness [45–48;49].
At baseline our sample had high prevalence of psychosis (71%) and substance dependence (62%)[20], which are associated with very high mortality risk among the homeless [50;51]. Seventeen participants died during the 24 month follow up, whereas several previous trials of SHF reported no participant deaths over at least 24 months [5;22;52]. We observed no differences in rates of death between study arms, demonstrating that intensive inter-disciplinary interventions were not sufficient to significantly reduce the likelihood of mortality compared to usual care.”
I totally agree Rik. The devil is really in the IMPLEMENTATION details.
Robert: I think it goes beyond that takeaway though. While housing formerly homeless or housing-insecure individuals is obviously a plus, if the HF model is intended to provide better outcomes in terms of quality of life, health, and treatment, that study does not have encouraging conclusions even for properly implemented HF programs.
Rik
Where do you get that takeaway from this study. Here’s its’ findings:
Does Housing First Work?
Brown et al. (2016) found that participants in a Housing First program, when compared with those who received TAU, spent less time homeless, spent less time hospitalized, and had enhanced use of needed services, including substance use treatment and mental health, medical, dental, and vision care. It appears that when providers avoid coercive relationships with participants, use of needed services improves. This finding is in sync with research on motivational interviewing; when providers follow the client’s lead, instead of pushing or pulling the client, they help unleash the client’s internal motivation, propelling clients towards their own goals.
Somers et al. (2017) found that participants in both congregate and scattered-site Housing First programs were better able to achieve stable housing than were participants in TAU and experienced significantly greater perceived quality of life.
A Housing First program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2007 and 2008 showed favorable results for people who had been homeless for five years or longer and were also struggling with mental health and substance use challenges (Tsemberis, Kent, & Respress, 2012).
Richard: I got it from reading and citing the Somers et al. (2017) study directly (see the link and quotation I provided above). It would appear that the summary quote you used (from the “Does Housing First Work” article) significantly misrepresented the findings of the Somers et al. study.
I would urge caution in drawing broad conclusions from a small sample of outcome studies. One of the presumed advantages of Housing First, for example, is that it reaches those individuals who would otherwise refuse any services with strings attached—e.g., abstinence, treatment participation. Those individuals—many of whom have had bad experiences with coerced mental health treatment—would not likely have participated in the Somers study because they could be randomly assigned to the so-called treatment as usual (TAU) group. Thus, due to this selection bias, that study would likely have excluded many of the very individuals that a Housing First model is designed to reach.
I only cite this as an example and as a caveat that we not discourage innovative solutions locally based on outcome studies of programs that are not necessarily equivalent, and whose research designs limit the general conclusions that can be drawn from them.
Utah has had a successful HF policy. The rise in homelessness is attributed to failing to fund HF adequately the last 2 years: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing/once-a-national-model-utah-struggles-with-homelessness-idUSKCN1P41EQ
All of this is the foolishness over not seeing the most cost effective solution. Many studies show that jail or intermittent hospitalization costs multiples of sustained daily housing and intervention, no matter what the outcome difference.
When I search Google Scholar for Housing First I get hundreds of hits. There have been a few randomized trials but no meta-analyses as yet. That might be able to illuminate some of the big effects of HF.
Sounds like most Davisites would prefer the Joe Arpaio housing model for any who cannot afford $3k/month rent or mortgages.
One of my all-time favorite social science articles is called “Models of Helping and Coping” by Brickman et al, 1982. In the article, the authors make a distinction between who is to blame for a past event (or behavior) and those whose responsibility it is to fix the problem (or behavior). In this scheme, individuals can be responsible for both starting and solving the problem (what they call the “moral” model). In this model it’s all on the individual – if they don’t make it, it’s their fault and they’ve got no one to blame but themselves. People who fail are seen as weak and without good character.
In the model where the problems are due to others (could be society, bad genes, or some such entity), the individual is not to blame but can do stuff to help themselves. This is the Jesse Jackson model: “It ain’t your fault but you have some power/responsibility to dig yourself out of the hole.”
The third model is the medical model, individuals didn’t cause the problems and they can’t fix them (they need experts).
The final one is where an individual is responsible for the problem but can’t fix it – this the model that is embodied by AA. You caused your problem and only with help from a higher authority can you change your behavior.
I tend to think that Housing First programs ascribe to a combination of the medical and the Jesse Jackson models while abstinence-only programs (like “Just say NO” – remember Nancy Reagan?) tend to rely on the moral and enlightenment models. All four models have drawbacks and don’t work for everyone, but as far as I can tell, the moral model and the enlightenment models give people less responsibility and choice and more liberty/freedom. And we all know how well abstinence-only sex education works, right? (And by the way, AA doesn’t have a very good long-term track record either.)
And then there was Albert Ellis and REBT, CBT, DBT, and all the other cognitive alphabet soup.
The bottom line is that substance addiction itself has a VERY poor track record, and the direct or indirect result is often a fatality.
Alan, u think I understand your position. I will simply reiterate that studies have not found AA or other such programs to compare favorably in the long run with other treatments. It may work for a self-selected population but that is a subsample of the using population.
Because of the nature of last letter of the acronym of 12-step programs, i.e. “A”-nonymous, any statistical analysis in and of itself would be a violation of the principals of the program, and would represent a compromised sample.
There has been plenty of research about the efficacy of AA and 12-step facilitated recovery programs.
Violating the principals?!? That’s just wrong!
On general principle…
Yes, know this will be a thread cleanup on aisle 4…. yes, know it was ‘too easy’, but hit my punny bone earlier, and not done icing it yet.
I would call this a flawed view of the twelve-step approach on two levels, views that are held by some who participate in twelve-step programs. And if they continue to see twelve step in this way, (and I must stress –> in my opinion) are likely to fail.
I watched Seattle is Dying. Unlike Alan Miller’s claim that they present alternatives, I believe they presented only one alternative, a prison-based model. I also read his recommended article by Edward Ring. Mr. Ring refers to addicts as “druggies” and alcoholics as “drunks”. I would have more to say about his attitude, but this really says all you need to know about his approach which does not acknowledge that substance addiction is an illness, not just a moral failing or manifestation of criminality as he implies.
If you look carefully at both Seattle is Dying and Mr. Ring’s article, you will see that while critical of what is being called the Homeless Industrial Complex both profess no downside to what I will refer to as the Homeless Prison Pharmaceutical Complex. This is hardly a balanced view. Both emphasize the criminal aspects while neither evaluate the core problem of addiction as an illness. Most major medical societies now acknowledge that addiction is an illness, often with a genetic component. I will post the lay version of some of the evidence. For those with medical backgrounds, there are many peer-reviewed articles in the major medical journals which cover this aspect in depth.
https://www.centeronaddiction.org/what-addiction/addiction-disease
As a public health issue, I agree with Mr. Ring that there are significant public health risks to the unhoused. Typhus, shigella, rat and mosquito-born illness being only a few. Housing people would prevent not only outbreaks of these diseases amongst the formerly unhoused, but would also be protective of the population as a whole. This is as true for those using drugs as those who are not.
So Alan, while you call it enabling, I call it disease risk reduction. Not only for the individuals with the disease but for the community overall.
I thank you for watching and reading those alternative points of view. I do not agree with either 100%; rather, I wish for people to open their eyes to other aspects of this very complex societal contagion, and to be open to question what they believe.
I will add that repeated studies show that interventions such as housing first cost much less than the alternatives of jail/prison or hospitalization, even correcting for the periodic housing in those latter institutions. (I can’t find the recent SF Chronicle study on these costs in SF.) Just simply from an economic standpoint we should be doing what is most cost effective.
Then we’re left with those who object either on 1) moral grounds on a misplace belief that the homeless are mostly to blame themselves (which corresponds with a lot of other misplaced blame and praise for individuals who are in their situations for reasons external to their own decisions) or 2) the wish to avoid being bothered with being part of society’s solutions and only wanting to free ride on their own good situation. Neither viewpoint is valid from my perspective.
Richard; These are very valid arguments for a HF approach. I bring up some of the caveats from studies evaluating HF programs to point out that there is not a lot of evidence it can provide better “secondary” outcomes—this, in turn, speaks to the intractability of the problem(s) and indicates that we should temper our expectations of the results.
I am appreciative of the discussion here. I really am. Alan and I are not going to agree but I know Alan also has a big heart 😉
I will try to summarize some of these and a few other articles in the weeks ahead (as I said earlier) and Robert found one or two I had not seen. Thanks.
Rik’s focus on accountability is spot on. Having worked in the non-profit world for over 25 years I can say that far too few of them are held to standards of accountability that build confidence by community members (and donors). I worked for a grand total of 1 agency (working in international microfinance and health protection) that made a fundamental commitment to assessing progress in a rigorous way. Too many agencies wave their hands and ask people to accept their good intentions. That is not good enough. However, with people like Homeless Outreach Coordinator Ryan Collins and consultant Joan Planell (former County HHS Director) involved in this and other City projects, I am confident attention is and will be paid to implantation details and assessing outcomes (and reporting on them).
Because homelessness does not have a single etiology, and because it is a syndrome, no single program will enable a clear “dose/response” outcome. But… providing housing first removes a source of ongoing trauma, reconnects people to others, and places them in a location where they can be “found” and supported. As the City and County embark on more specific case management whereby all the city’s homeless individuals are identified and support and treatment plans created for them, I am confident we will see reductions in those on the street. Examples from New Jersey and the Gulf Coast support this proactive approach.
As a reminder, the City has moved 13 individuals plus a large family into permanent housing off the streets since its Pathways program began. All continue to be housed. All, to my knowledge, have active case management. The relatively limited numbers moved into housing are due entirely to the limitations of having too few vouchers and too few affordable beds available county-wide.
If this is the program I think it is I very much approve this program. I saw some people working downtown on a crew on an employment program and one engaged me wanting to know about my bike mirror. He was working hard and clearly motivated and lived at 1111 H. I went home a brought back a spare mirror. He insisted on paying for it but had no money on him. I said he could pay me next time we crossed paths. We haven’t yet, but I know if we do he will pay me, and if we don’t, no problem.
Here’s an article in the Deseret News that describes the situation in Utah and the multifacted aspect. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678779/Is-Utah-still-a-model-for-solving-chronic-homelessness.html
I have a good friend who works in social services. She is working her way up the professional ladder; not here, but in an urban area that is pretty similar to Davis in many ways. I would guess the conditions are pretty comparable.
They are completely overwhelmed by this problem. Swamped. She has, if I recall, about sixty people that she is supposed to make contact with every week. Just finding them is the first issue in many cases. The meth and opoid problems are crisis level everywhere, and expecting social workers and police and the courts to somehow contribute to the resolution is simply not realistic without massive infusions of funding, more training for social workers, and some pretty serious re-organization of our social services.
I don’t see that happening any time soon. The turnover in her industry, the burnout factor, is very high. Private/public partnerships are going to be necessary to try to provide help on the margins, get people off the street, and move some of them toward rehabilitation. Meanwhile, people who are homeless for other reasons are getting lost in the mire surrounding this massive problem.
There is no single substance abuse or recovery program that has a high rate of efficacy, and none that works across the board for all types of people and situations. Trying to match people to the best treatment program for their personality type and degree of addiction is challenging and requires a lot of training and resources. Mostly what people like my friend end up doing is showing them that there are recovery groups – 12-step, SMART Recovery, Lifering, etc. – and trying to make sure they somehow avail themselves of them. All without vehicles, money for transit, or in many cases even the basics of daily living.
Motivational enhancement, a cornerstone of some of the more effective programs (per some studies from a decade or so ago), requires training. A medical evaluation is helpful, but that just creates another layer of access to try to get them through.
You can see how useful it would be if folks who have substance abuse problems could be housed in a supervised facility, so their social workers and counselors and doctors could have ready access to them. The alternative to places like this is jail. Does that work? I don’t think the people involved in our legal and incarceration systems would suggest that jail is a good venue for getting people clean and sober and helping them get the life skills that will end their homelessness.
Obviously these facilities need to be well supervised. Near-neighbor issues need to be treated respectfully. But I personally feel that trying to deal with these issues at the local level, as with programs like this, has greater likelihood of success than any program run at the state or federal levels.
I see two, sometimes diametrically-opposed concerns in the comments above:
1) The best way to help those who are experiencing homelessness/drug/mental health problems, and
2) The best way to ensure that those in the first category above don’t negatively/unduly impact those who aren’t in that category. (Or at least, not to a degree in which they draw attention from others.)
And yet, most of the comments only address one, or the other. Sometimes without much consideration of the other concern. (Actually, that’s not unusual on this blog.) 😉
R.O., A.Men
Not to mention statewide, and nationwide. A situation unlikely to change. Which is why any large-scale “solution” will also have to be cost-effective. Probably a reason that there were large-scale institutions, in the past. With no cost-effective replacements, perhaps combined with an over-emphasis on a “right” to live however one wants to, regardless of consequences to oneself or others.
In general (and not a comment on Paul’s Place), it seems to me that facilities that are located in neighborhoods should be reserved for those who’ve already made some minimum level of commitment and ability to function without creating problems for others.
For those not yet at that level, placement in neighborhoods may not be the best alternative. Perhaps that’s where some large-scale facilities (outside of existing neighborhoods) would work better for all.
What makes you think that there isn’t some level of commitment? What are the terms and conditions upon someone living at Paul’s Place?
Suggest you read my comment again, as I specifically noted that it was not a comment regarding Paul’s Place. (As a side note, I don’t know exactly what the terms and conditions of Paul’s Place are.)
In general, if illegal activities are creating problems for neighbors, such facilities will be actively resisted. That’s a reality.
Using drugs. The definition of LEVEL ZERO.
Because people with roofs are SO selfish.
Um, where did you have in mind?
Don: I don’t know, but outside of neighborhoods. Where were the facilities of yesteryear located? (I know where some were.)
Urban nurseries are ‘outside of neighborhoods’. For example.
Ron – Who decides who meets the “minimum level of commitment” standard? By what criteria? What does “ability to function” mean? Does it exclude those who can’t function without care and supervision or specialized services and supports? How do you define “creating problems for others”? Is this an individualized determination or one based on assumptions and stereotypes?
Damn good questions…
Staff (regarding rules), and police (regarding laws) if necessary. Perhaps ultimately the city council, e.g., if a conditional use permit is issued and they’re receiving repeated complaints.
Rules and laws.
General willingness and ability to adhere to rules and laws.
No.
Repeatedly breaking rules and laws.
Strictly on “stereotypes”. (Just thought this deserved a sarcastic response.) 😉
Actually, I misread this and couldn’t correct it in time. I’d say that it depends upon the level and ability of the facility, itself.
In general, what do you think of my responses? (I thought they were pretty good, off-the cuff.) 😉
I’d also say that there’s an inherent conflict (a virtual “recipe” for problems) if rules are not aligned with laws (and even more so, if rules essentially provide “protection” from enforcement of laws).
Alan Miller . . . for a fee of course.
Can someone explain what kind of people cannot live in Paul’s Place? And what are the rules for eviction? How does Paul’s Place prioritize who gets a room?
At this point we cannot. Although if this is modeled after Cesar Chavez Plaza then probably the same rules would apply. But until this goes before Council we will not know what provisions are in place.
What are the rules at Cesar Chavez Plaza?
And, if it’s not creating the same problems as Pacifico did, do you have any idea regarding the reason(s)? (Opinion encouraged, not necessarily “challenged”.)
Is Cesar Chavez primarily for families?
Also wondering what the rules will be at Creekside.
And, is Creekside going to have the same management as Pacifico?
The names of both evoke images of water . . .
From another thread, from a poster (MW) on the UCD thing…
The concept of a ‘social contract’… which may need to be preceded by an “intervention” or flat-out charitable move… but would include a commitment to one’s self to ‘get better’, and to commit to service back to the community/others….
The homeless guy I worked with wanted to do both… I believe that was for “reals”… and he had shown that… but the classic “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” adage was in play…
The ‘homeless community’, at least here in Davis, is exactly that, more often than not… known two of them pretty well… one of the homeless guys “watched out for” three others… in military, got discharged under less than honorable conditions (how he worded it), ended up on the streets/Nishi, but as I and a friend engaged him, he was sober, articulate, and cared for his ‘buddies’ (no man left behind?)… he passed about 2 months after I got to know him… my friend had known him and ‘the boys’ for ~ 8 months.
A few months later, met a homeless guy (previously mentioned) who said, and acted like he wanted to change his lot in life… when I tried to connect with him to get to medical/psych appointments (and I was trusted at the level that he, another, and Communicare had power of medical attorney), and couldn’t find him at the appointed time/appointed place, other homeless that had seen me helping him, caring about him, trusted me enough that they volunteered to help… and, they did…
They cared about him too… he was 65 at the time… some who helped were definitely ‘somewhat’ under the influence… another was “getting CIA generated radio waves” in his head… several others appeared to be stone-cold sober, no obvious signs of MH issues… point is, they ALL helped over a period of 12 weeks… these folk are not only human, but showed me more ‘humanity’ than ~ 90% of the folk I’ve know here in town. Think about that, before you judge… just a suggestion…
Can folk handle “the truth” about the homeless?
It is ‘rocket science’… not simple…