February 21, 2024
Gov. Gavin Newsom helps clear a homeless encampment in San Diego. Courtesy of the Governor’s workplace

How a lot distinction will a March poll measure make in relation to preventing California’s large homelessness disaster? That’s the query earlier than voters as they weigh in on Proposition 1, which has been touted as California’s likelihood to lastly do one thing concerning the epidemic on the streets. 

Prop. 1, the one proposition on California ballots this March, asks voters to green-light a $6.4 billion bond for remedy beds and housing items catering to folks with psychological diseases and addictions. It additionally would restructure some present funding to funnel extra psychological well being cash towards housing. 

CalMatters Logo

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed the measure, mentioned it should “prioritize getting folks off the streets, out of tents and into remedy.” The governor has so much using on its success, as voters develop into more and more pissed off with the state’s lack of progress in relation to cleansing up encampments and serving to the folks struggling inside them.

However consultants are cautioning in opposition to placing an excessive amount of inventory in Prop. 1 as an answer. 

It gained’t assist everyone — not by an extended shot. Neither is it designed to. Along with funding 6,800 beds in services treating psychological sickness and habit, the $6.4 billion bond would create as much as 4,350 new properties for individuals who want psychological well being and habit providers — 2,350 of which might be reserved for veterans, in accordance with the Legislative Analyst’s Workplace. In a state with an estimated homeless inhabitants of greater than 180,000, that can hardly make a dent. 

“It will likely be nice for these people, however nonetheless leaves virtually 98% exterior or in shelters,” mentioned Bob Erlenbusch, govt director of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to Finish Homelessness. 

Prop. 1 additionally would require counties to spend 30% of their Psychological Well being Providers Act funds on housing — together with rental subsidies and new development. These funds, which come from taxing California’s millionaires, are anticipated to boost about $1 billion per yr for housing packages. 

New properties funded beneath Prop. 1 would goal homeless Californians who usually are each probably the most seen and the toughest to assist, together with these within the throes of psychosis and habit. Many unhoused Californians don’t match that description. 

“The general public perceives it as everybody, and it’s undoubtedly not everybody,” mentioned Dr. Margot Kushel, who directs the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, “however there are a good quantity of people that have these disabling circumstances.”

In a latest complete research of homeless Californians, 27% of individuals surveyed had been hospitalized of their lifetime for a psychological well being downside. When requested if they’d ever skilled a protracted interval of hallucinations, 23% mentioned they’d, in accordance with the research by the Homelessness and Housing Initiative. 

About one-third of these surveyed reported utilizing medicine three or extra instances per week. 

Regardless that it leaves folks out, pouring sources into the sickest subset of California’s homeless group is the humane factor to do, mentioned Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat from Stockton.

“They depend too,” mentioned Talamantes Eggman, whose invoice reforming the Psychological Well being Providers Act grew to become half of Prop. 1. “We are able to’t simply see folks as an issue. You need to see folks as folks and (ask) how can we do our greatest to assist those that want it probably the most?”

Focusing on the folks with the best wants could also be politically savvy as properly. Voters who’re up in arms over the state’s more and more dire homelessness disaster — and politicians’ seeming incapability to repair it — aren’t complaining about the one that drives for Uber throughout the day and sleeps in his automobile, out of sight, at night time. They’re complaining concerning the folks dwelling in encampments, strolling into visitors and shouting at no person. These are the folks this measure may assist. And that’s the place voters may truly see the measure make a distinction on the road.  

“We’re at a degree the place voters want this,” mentioned Christopher Martin, coverage director for Housing California. “Voters are feeling fatigued on housing and they should see some progress, and I believe we have to display that.”

However Susan Ellenberg, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, doesn’t anticipate Prop. 1 will do a lot on that entrance.

“When it comes to addressing homelessness, we’d like extra housing, interval,” she mentioned. “And I fear that when folks’s expectations are conflating, they’re upset and really feel that issues aren’t being solved though a lot cash goes out the door.”

She additionally worries that among the unintended penalties of Prop. 1 may find yourself exacerbating her county’s homelessness disaster. To pour the required quantity of Psychological Well being Providers Act funding into housing, the county must take cash from different packages. Meaning there might be fewer {dollars} for issues like homelessness prevention and early psychological well being interventions. If the county skimps on the sorts of providers that hold folks off the streets within the first place, Ellenberg worries extra folks will fall into homelessness or their psychological well being will deteriorate to the purpose the place they want much more care. 

Los Angeles County’s psychological well being division additionally has “some critical considerations” about Prop. 1, mentioned Director Lisa Wong. Final yr, the county spent 32% of its Psychological Well being Providers Act funding on outpatient providers — the psychiatric care, counseling, remedy and extra that helps stabilize somebody dwelling exterior a psychiatric facility. If Prop. 1 passes and redirects a piece of that funding into housing, the county will be capable of spend lower than 18% on outpatient providers — and different packages akin to disaster response and homeless providers must dip into that funding pool as properly. 

“We’re involved that lacking these service {dollars} may compromise the power of individuals to remain in housing as soon as they’re housed, or to get to a spot of wellness the place they are often efficiently housed,” Wong mentioned. 

Current expansions in Medi-Cal imply extra persons are coated for extra providers, which ought to assist offset funding losses, Talamantes Eggman mentioned.

“I don’t see it as cuts,” she mentioned. “I see it as a reprioritization.” 

There’s additionally the query of how counties will give you the sources wanted to make the required program shifts. Santa Clara County is dealing with a scarcity of employees and hiring freezes introduced on by a price range deficit, Ellenberg mentioned. 

“I really feel like we’re being requested to do considerably higher quantities of labor with fewer and fewer instruments,” she mentioned. 

Kushel, who specializes within the intersection of homelessness and well being, mentioned the authors of Prop. 1 — Talamantes Eggman and Democratic Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks — have their priorities in the best place.

It’s practically unattainable to stabilize somebody’s psychological well being or deal with their habit whereas they’re dwelling on the road and pouring all of their effort into surviving everyday, Kushel mentioned. However when given housing mixed with the best remedy plan, even individuals who appear extremely sick can thrive.

“Will or not it’s sufficient? I don’t know,” she mentioned. “Nevertheless it looks as if we should always attempt.”

How can Prop. 1 funds be put to the perfect use? In San Diego, Deacon Jim Vargas says: detox beds. He runs Father Joe’s Villages, which has greater than 1,000 shelter beds — none of that are particularly for detox. Your entire county has solely 77 detox beds — not practically sufficient, he mentioned. 

Vargas hopes to make use of Prop. 1 {dollars} to open extra.

“I’d prefer to assume that sure, it should make a distinction on the streets,” he mentioned. 

Martin, of Housing California, has extra tempered expectations.

“It’s definitely a step in the best path,” he mentioned. “Nevertheless it’s not every thing.”

CalMatters is a public curiosity journalism enterprise dedicated to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it issues.