No one can listen to the story, about the verbal assault by a homeless man, told by Jack Armstrong and not feel sadness, anger and sympathy. As a father of two kids who are the same age as Mr. Armstrong’s, I sat there wondering how I would have handled the situation had it arisen.
Not to downplay the impact of this on Mr. Armstrong, his wife and kids in any way, but unfortunately those situations happen and it is not always homeless people who end up perpetrating them. The man has been caught, he has a criminal record and is wanted for other crimes of violence.
From a policy perspective the question is – what do we do about it? Mr. Armstrong said, “I want Davis to stop being a magnet” for these kind of people.
But the question really is – what does that mean and even what can we do? That, I think, is the much more difficult question because, as Chief Darren Pytel put it, “the issues are extremely complex and most people have no idea about the interplay with all the systems and how complex human beings are.”
As Jon Adler, who spoke as a member of the public and a former homeless person himself, put it quite eloquently, “We are attracting people here.” And for good reason, Davis is a safe, nice town. He said, “When I went to bed, I didn’t worry about someone kicking my head in.”
Aside from that I wonder if we really are attracting homeless people here, other than the fact that Davis is safer overall than other areas and the police are not out harassing people like they
do in other cities. Is that really something we can or even want to change?
Mr. Adler complained that compassion was lacking in the conversation, and I must say I came away from the entire event rather disappointed. It seemed like the purpose was to complain about things that were happening rather than offer forth solutions or talk about the programs that were being developed.
Chief Darren Pytel, ironically, served as a voice of reason, explaining that he had been to a conference and came away with the belief that this is “not something unique to Davis.” He went to a regional conference and the most engaging discussion was on dealing with the homeless. He came away “feeling good about Davis and the types of things we are doing.”
He concluded that this was not necessarily a Davis thing and what other communities are dealing with is far worse.
That view is strongly juxtaposed against the litany of complaints and people urging the police to do something – anything – to get us out of this mess.
The two people who are probably doing the most on the issue of homelessness other than the chief are Bill Pride from Davis Community Meals and Tracey Dickinson from the County Health and Human Services Agency. It felt like too often their voices were muted and downplayed on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, while Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee nicely added reason and balance when he belatedly arrived on the panel, notably for his absence was Mayor Robb Davis, who has done more than any other elected official on this issue and could speak in detail on specifics of these programs – that others on the panel could not do.
The solutions are difficult, some are not particularly flashy and they will take time and resources to properly implement. On Tuesday, instead, we have seen the rhetoric ratcheted up. But to what end?
Darren Pytel did not outright say it on Tuesday, but at the May walkabout downtown, he was quite adamant that the police cannot arrest their way out of this problem. Criminalizing homeless behavior is not an answer and it is something that both the police and frankly the DA’s office is moving away from.
Chief Pytel made it clear that if there is violence, threats, drunkeness or people passed out, the police can intervene. But, in most of those cases, it is catch and release.
Deputy DA Chris Bulkeley said that one of the big problems is that a lot of people don’t want to get services. And that getting people into treatment is one of the biggest challenges as, generally speaking, they cannot compel people to take medication unless they place them in a conservatorship – which is a long and difficult process.
Perhaps the most valuable point was made by Tracey Dickinson in this regard. She actually made two critical points. One is that “what we find is that it often takes a very long time to build the relationship with that person so that they are willing to access services. On average it would take like seven ‘touches’ so seven times of going out (and making contact) before they are even willing to engage in a conversation.”
This is part of what Robb Davis talked about both at the walkabout and the Vanguard event, that we need to build relationships with the homeless population in order for them to seek out people’s help when they are ready to receive it.
That is clearly not what people want to hear when they talk about wanting to be able to operate their business “unbothered and unmolested by the homeless.”
Another issue that we have to deal with is addiction. Darren Pytel pointed out that the cost of street drugs is so low that they are seeing, instead of beer, people using meth, heroin and marijuana on the streets. He noted that many of the panhandlers bring in serious money at $80 to $160 a day to feed that addiction.
Everyone seems to agree with the need to figure out a way to stop the panhandling. As Bill Pride put it, “I do not support panhandling.” The alternative he put forward is to use the “giving meter” as a way to support the homeless without putting cash into their hands.
Finally the city is going to look into funding programs like Housing First. The council unanimously agreed to put forth a $50 a year parcel tax for social service money – which could end up funding these kinds of programs.
It is a Catch-22, as housing alone is not going to help people with addictions and mental illness. But, as Tracey Dickinson further pointed out, with someone living outside or homeless, “it’s very difficult to stabilize.”
The idea of Housing First, then, is to treat the immediate issue of shelter first, and then provide wrap-around services and hope to have a better situation with which to stabilize.
The problem is that there is no panacea, as Robb Davis has put it multiple times, and people need to have patience to deal with the issue. Ratcheting up the rhetoric is not going to solve the problems – they are, as the chief put them, incredibly complex.
“If there were easy answers we wouldn’t have the significant problem we do across the country,” he said.
If the Chamber wants to be part of a solution here, then they need to help educate their constituencies on the programs in place, what is being developed and the limitations of what we can do.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If only a certain blogger in town would listen to this advice when it comes to racial issues.
Different issue, different problem. Everyone knows there is a homeless problem, the question is solution. The problem on racial issues is making people aware that there is even a problem. A big difference.
“the question is solution” The answer is that there is no solution. Nothing we do will make any difference to the perception of the problem downtown. Nothing we do will substantially change the number of people living by the tracks or the 113. There is no “solution”.
“No solution” does not mean there is nothing we can do to help. The question for me is what is our priority with limited resources? Robb seems to favor the long term chronic homeless which are the most expensive and least likely to show improvement or to reach a self-sustaining life. I favor investing in those that are most likely to recover with the fewest resources invested and most likely to reach a self sustaining life.
Beyond just the values judgement I believe that a succession of success stories would show the worth of a program like this.
Jim raises a ‘good’ point… although not well publicized, this March, a young homeless guy who with his drinking and other issues, probably couldn’t have been ‘main-streamed’ without a lot of time and effort… which translates to $$$… he fell asleep, inebriated, smoking a cigarette while in his sleeping bag (next to Putah Creek bikepath on the Nishi property)… guess what happened… except for the attempts to get him to medical help, no cost to ‘the community’ when he died of his 2nd/3rd degree burns a few hours later… he was chronically homeless… not spending money on the likes of him makes full economic sense, and spending it elsewhere for the temporary homeless.
After all, when a fictional character was queried…
Jim makes an excellent economic point.
Triage means abandoning those that have worse prospects. Not triaging means abandoning those later in line.
Pay your money and take your choice.
What program or expenditure would have prevented this?
Jim – You create a false dichotomy (favored sport of VG commentators for years). We are having success with folks who are homeless for a variety of reasons (domestic violence, loss of job/home, recent release from jail, etc.) and have been for years in this community. They go through various programs and we never hear about them because the systems in place help them out. I will not say these work perfectly but there are many people who are helped. Others rely on less formal social support networks to move beyond homelessness. Some live precarious lives for years but manage to stay sheltered in their distress.
So, while there are gaps in service for those with shorter-term problems, many have their needs met. This leaves the more challenging cases for whom homelessness is the visible presentation of a syndrome that often includes trauma, addiction and mental health challenges. I categorically reject the notion that we should not invest in working to move such people out of homelessness. Why? Because at least one member of my family has found a way out of such a “chronic” situation, and I have seen successes in our own community. Some HAVE died, but others whose names I could cite, have moved beyond the challenges. Yes, it is costly, but we have the resources to deal with the cost. It only takes will.
Robb, unless you have the resources to do everything for everybody all at once you will have to choose. That is not a “false dichotomy”. How you choose is negotiable, that you will have to choose is not.
Am thinking we can chip away, and make progress (and hopefully prevention/early intervention, to boot) … your statement, as written, is indeed a false dichotomy, in my opinion.
Rest assured we have to do nothing further, financially, for the dead young man. It has been ‘taken care of’. Might even make insurance premiums go down, which would benefit most of us!
By your reasoning, Jim, we should, as a society, focus on medical treatments for stage 1-2 cancers… it is economically damaging to bother treating those with stage 3 or 4… think about how much we could do for those with stage 1-2 cancer if we didn’t mess with (finance/provide health care for) later stages. Makes perfect economic sense.
Once again, your framing creates a straw man: “unless you have the resources to do everything for everybody…”
Who suggested this?
Ooops! should have read,
“By your reasoning, Jim, we should, as a society, focus on medical treatments for stage 1-2 cancers… ”
No, by my reasoning you should spent to prevent cancer first and then worry about early stage.
Jim
I think that you are missing one point. It is not usually those of us who find ourselves in stable life situations that “choose” when to make a change for a homeless person. It is the homeless themselves that make the decision when and in what form to accept help as both Robb and David have pointed out. Not all of them do it in the same way at the same time. Therefore what the city/county/region will need to provide is a flexible system of processes to help in differing situations. In some situations, this will meaning housing first with wrap around services, others may rely on addiction recovery services while for others it may be PTSD or other mental illness.
Another point that I would like to make is the very definition of the “homeless” as a problem. This is quite a dehumanizing statement to define any human being, not as a unique individual, but only in terms of the “problem” they represent. This is inherent in the idea of rounding up the homeless and depositing them in another community and/or trying to harass them into moving on.
I am very much in favor of the approach being pursued by Bill Pride and Tracey Dickinson with strong support from City leaders including Darren Pytel and Robb Davis. I know it is not a panacea, but it can certainly form part of a framework of available services that homeless individuals can access when they are ready to take that step.
Couldn’t disagree more. This is the type of reasoning private health insurance companies use to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, or to place lifetime caps on mental health services. It may maximize profits and get the numbers up; but it discriminates based on severity of disability and need.
Maximizing success rates by cherry-picking the easy cases should not be the primary goal of public policy or publicly supported programs. Achieving a self-sustaining life is not the only measure of successful outcomes. Improved quality of life is also a measure of success, and that is not beyond the reach of even those with the most significant needs.
“Maximizing success rates by cherry-picking the easy cases should not be the primary goal of public policy or publicly supported programs”
You have a bright future in state government.
A business or an NGO would say “we have $x$ dollars, how can we use that money for maximum benefit and to justify the trust placed in us by the people who gave us the money” There is also an awareness that they have to go back to the people whose money it is and ask for more. If you are a California State entity you just throw the money away based on the whims of whoever and demand more later. Look at CIRM as a case in point. They have spent billions with no tangible results and now they are wondering how to ask for more.
Thanks. My current career in state government is going pretty well also.
This is why I can’t return the compliment and say you also have a bright future in state government. You don’t really have a clue how it works.
You don’t really have a clue how it works.” I could not agree more. When I’m entrusted with a budget I am expected to accomplish something. I would be uncomfortable with an environment where you explicitly state you don’t have any concern about results.
Props to you for not caring what you spend money on.
Foolish assertions that have no relationship to anything I’ve ever said.
Your disdain of “Maximizing success rates”. Which both businesses and NGOs are big fans of.
I said maximizing success rates by cherry-picking easy cases was a problem because it neglects those most in need of services and supports. Please try not to misrepresent.
“I said maximizing success rates by cherry-picking easy cases was a problem because it neglects those most in need of services and supports”
So we should provide liver transplants to people on respirators as they are the sickest?
Eventually people are going to wonder what was actually accomplished with the money. Even in Davis people may be more inclined to support programs that show success.
So we should provide prosthetics to wounded veterans but not organ transplants or PTSD treatment because the success rate is higher? Let’s stay on topic and not draw inapt analogies.
” Let’s stay on topic ” And the topic we have at hand is Robb thinks the voters may approve $50/parcel. They may not in which case this entire discussion is moot.
Nothing you do with that money is going to materially change people experience with the homeless. This money will not reduce the number of beggars, it will not reduce the negative encounters, and it will not perceptibly change the number of homeless.
It may, if used wisely, positively change some individual lives. If voters see results they be more inclined to continue supporting it. I believe most people would like to see people achieve a certain state of recovery, not just poor money into “the needy” what ever that means to you.
If the GOP stops state and local tax deductions like is in the current plan California state and cities are going to have a much harder time convincing residents to open their wallets.
“by my reasoning you should spent to prevent cancer first and then worry about early stage.”
This implies that everything must be done sequentially. I believe that we have the ability to approach from a variety of angles simultaneously. I would recommend focusing on childhood exposure to domestic violence as the precursor of many cases of mental trauma and subsequent detrimental coping mechanisms. Adolescent drug and alcohol use would be another venue for early intervention in terms of prevention which is always more cost effective than subsequent treatment. Aiding individuals who are on the street now is likely a more refractory issue. This would require individuals trained in differing forms of interventions. I would encourage dispatching more trained individuals be they police, social service workers, county employees, and/or volunteers to make “rounds” on the individuals who are not passing through, but making the streets their home. I know some are working on this now, but would like to see a more coordinated effort.
Yes, it would be costly, however, until we address prevention, establishment & maintenance in stable safe living situations, with acceptance of improvement in quality of life as the goal as Eric suggested rather than expecting the unrealistic goal that all will achieve become fully self sustaining we are unlikely to make significant improvements.
Hi Tia,
I am highly impressed that you can accomplish that with a $50 parcel tax. I’ll support you.
It will start out at $50 anyway, then later….? Isn’t that how it usually goes?
Yes, reminds me of the old joke about the guys buying water melons for $1, trucking them to town, and selling them for $.50. At the end of the day they lost money. After thinking about it for awhile they came up with the solution, “We need another truck”.
They will take the $50 parcel tax, help nobody, and come back asking for $150.