Should California be able to require sobriety in homeless housing?

Desperate for a way to help the tens of thousands of people living in tents, cars and RVs on California’s streets, lawmakers are attempting to upend a key tenet of the state’s homelessness policy.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Touring the Santa newly remodeled Barbara Rescue Mission

Two new bills would allow state funding to support sober housing — a significant departure from current law, which requires providers to accept people regardless of their drug and alcohol use. 

“If people want to get off of drugs and away from drugs, we should give them that option,” said Assemblymember Matt Haney, a Democrat from San Francisco who wrote Assembly Bill 2479. “They shouldn’t be forced to live next to people who are using drugs.”

There are at least 12,000 sober living beds in the state, but more than twice that many Californians who would qualify for those services, according to data from the California Research Bureau quoted in the Assembly Health Committee’s analysis of the second bill, AB 2893.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

As state law prohibits spending housing funding on sobriety-focused programs, many are funded by private donations. 

The lawmakers behind the two bills say they aren’t trying to alter the key idea that everyone deserves immediate housing, even people struggling with addictions. Instead, they’re attempting to give more choices to people who want to be sober. But some experts worry that, because California has a shortage of homeless housing, people who relapse in sober housing or who don’t want to stay sober would have nowhere to go but back to the street. 

The bills come as California’s homelessness population is skyrocketing, having increased from about 118,000 in 2016 to more than 181,000 last year. Some critics blame and want to overturn the state’s inclusive housing policy. At the same time, as public fears about crime soar, voters in some liberal cities are putting limits on who can receive public assistance.

San Francisco voters this year passed an initiative mandating drug screenings for welfare recipients. In San Diego County, Vista Mayor John Franklin recently introduced a measure pledging not to support “any program that enables continued drug use” and criticizing housing first for precluding sober housing.

“I think we are seeing a cultural shift,” said Christopher Calton, a research fellow who studies housing and homelessness for libertarian think-tank the Independent Institute. “People are starting to say these permissive policies aren’t working.”

California’s ‘housing first’ homelessness policy

At issue is the state’s adherence to “housing first,” a framework where homeless residents are offered housing immediately and with minimal caveats or requirements, regardless of sobriety. The housing should be “low-barrier,” meaning residents are not required to participate in recovery or other programs. After someone is housed, providers are then supposed to offer voluntary substance use and mental health treatment, job training, or other services. The idea is that if people don’t have to focus all their energy on simply surviving on the streets, they’re better equipped to work on their other issues.

Housing first became law of the land in California in 2016 when the state required all state-funded programs to adopt the model. 

The federal government also uses that framework. But in 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said requiring sobriety is not necessarily anti-housing first. California did not follow suit.

Some Republicans and conservative-leaning groups now are pushing to overturn California’s housing first framework, saying it hasn’t successfully reduced homelessness. Assemblymember Josh Hoover, from Folsom, is trying to completely repeal housing first with AB 2417. That bill has yet to be heard by a committee, and likely won’t advance this year.

But with more than 180,000 Californians lacking a home, even Democrats want to see changes. The bills by Haney and Assemblymember Chris Ward of San Diego would allow up to 25% of state funds in each county to go toward sober housing. 

Neither Democrat wants to upend housing first. Instead, they want sober housing facilities to operate under a housing first framework. Haney’s bill would require counties to make sure sober facilities kept people housed at rates similar to facilities without sobriety requirements.

Both bills specify that tenants should not be kicked out of their sober housing just because they relapse, and instead they should get support to help them recover. If a resident is no longer interested in being sober, the program should help them move into another housing program. 

Having a sober living option for people who want it would be a good thing — but it would have to be their choice, said Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for The Corporation for Supportive Housing. But homeless housing is so scarce in California, that it’s unlikely participants would be given a true choice, she said. And, these bills would divert already limited state money away from low-barrier housing.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Comments

  1. But SF wants to give booze to the homeless alcoholics on their streets.

  2. Can’t believe this is even a worthy article…. drugs, now booze, which is a drug, handed to homeless!!! How stupid does the writer think we are????

  3. Rico Lagattuta says

    When will the government learn that they have no right to dictate the life style of the citizens. When will they learn that it cannot be done. Remember Prohibition? Read “Personal Opinions of One Common Man” due out soon.

  4. I worked with Bay Area SRO’s which were remodels of old hotels for housing the homeless or formerly homeless. They all had a rule that you did not get housing if you were actively addicted to alcohol or drugs. The problem was that once in, they would go back to using or drinking. Since the SRO managers were given a mandate to preserve the residents’ housing, they could not evict them. Those residents then created many problems for the non-addicted residents, with pests, filth (e.g., feces smeared on walls), and hoarding — some spent the day out with a grocery cart and returned with “stuff” which was piled so high in their small room that there was no room to walk. It became impossible for management, which people were soft-hearted and compassionate, to keep the SRO clean and free of pests because you can’t eradicate pests in a room piled high with stuff. Ultimately these places become uninhabitable.

Speak Your Mind

*