Carol and Rebel, two homeless people living in Santa Cruz. Photo by Chip Scheuer.
Monica Martinez, executive director of the Homeless Services Center, is not using her time efficiently. She’s committing an entire morning to Walter (not his real name), a very skinny homeless man with a bushy beard, leathery skin and a mumbly way of talking. She is taking him to the local Department of Veterans’ Affairs office to get him signed up for benefits, hopefully including a housing voucher.
“He’s entitled to veterans’ benefits but he’s not receiving a dollar from them. He’s never even gotten registered, because nobody’s walked him through the process. You know what?” Martinez lowers her voice, “I’m the executive director of this organization. The last thing I should be doing is taking a homeless guy to the VA. This is not a best practice.” And then she does something very odd for a person speaking about chronic, debilitating homelessness—she smiles. She smiles because she believes she knows how to end homelessness, once and for all. She smiles because, in the long run, she believes what she’s doing with Walter is very much a best practice.
Martinez cares deeply about homeless people, yes, but it becomes clear from talking to her that what she loves most is solving problems.
Martinez’s background is in something called Permanent Supportive Housing, which she describes breathlessly as “the ultimate solution.” It is a model for solving the problem of homelessness, and it is the backbone of a national grassroots effort called the 100,000 Homes Campaign. With this model, homeless individuals are put into housing—literally, “Here’s an apartment, here’s a key,” no questions asked—and wrapped in any and all supportive services they may need for the rest of their lives until they die, hopefully with dignity and indoors.
The national campaign aims to find permanent housing for 100,000 chronically homeless Americans—meaning people who have suffered long-term or repeated homelessness coupled with a disability—by July 2014. So far, the campaign has housed over 17,000 people. It has outposts in 130 communities, including Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., Baltimore and San Jose. This May, Santa Cruz joined the campaign and committed to house 180 homeless individuals in our community.
Comments (11)
Post a comment
Megan Carlson Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 2:50 pm
For more information on Permanent Supportive Housing and the 180/180 Campaign, visit www.180santacruz.org
Linda Lee Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 2:55 pm
Permanent Supportive housing is a great solution. You can’t be against homelessness and against housing for the homeless.
Rick R Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 3:32 pm
I imagine that this article will spark controversy, but I am all for it. I am tired of seeing really sick homeless people in our town. I would rather see these people get the help they need and get off the street. If we don’t do something, the problem won’t just go away. It will probably get worse.
Sibley Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 3:48 pm
Thank you for writing about this topic. In my view, it is unfortunate that the article tries hard to stir up dissent and over-dramatize the details. I note that the County Board of Supervisors was recently unanimous in encouraging the local housing authority to create the voucher preference mentioned in this article. While there are many controversies - in some cases justifiably so - about the degree and details of homeless services in Santa Cruz, I do not believe that this program has been one of them.
On the housing authority topic, the fact is that the “first come first serve” model on the surface satisfies our desire for some degree of fairness, but adhering only to that model is not in the public’s best interest in all cases. As noted in the article, public dollars would go much further (not only for social services programs, but for all uses) if some significance is placed on the cost savings created, as the 180/180 program does. That is just smart business. Even so, that shouldn’t be the criteria in a majority of cases either - I think the argument can be made much more clearly than it was herein that the 180/180 campaign represents an appropriate component in a suite of better practices for getting people successfully out of homelessness.
At the end of the day, surely it makes sense to be doing what has been proven elsewhere to work more successfully than what Santa Cruz County is currently doing. For one niche group of people within the homeless population, the 180/180 campaign is such an example - and it saves the community net $ along the way. As the economics professor stated - how could we not do it? I hope this article isn’t a set back for that process of implementing what works here in Santa Cruz.
claudia brown Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 4:16 pm
Often the best solutions to big problems are simple and straightforward (I didn’t say ‘easy’). 180/180 is one of those cases; getting homeless people into housing saves money and saves lives. This is a proven, data driven approach to solving a problem that has sometimes seemed insoluble. Good job to all involved.
Christine Sippl Tue, Jul 03, 2012 - 6:43 pm
I appreciate Georgia’s beginning efforts to learn about and write about Permanent Supportive Housing as a proven best practice for solving long-term homelessness. As someone who has observed first-hand the long and challenging path taken by people who have been homeless for years to find, enter and keep housing, I have to tell you, that it is nothing like what Georgia has described. No one “gets handed a key, no questions asked, and all the support they need for the rest of their lives.”
Just like you and me, people who are homeless have to figure out how they are going to pay for housing. Even if they have successfully navigated the long process over months, and sometimes years, to apply and qualify for a housing subsidy, everyone needs to figure out how to come up with a deposit, and If they are lucky enough to have a subsidy, they will pay 1/3 of their monthly income for rent, others pay much more. For people with multiple health conditions and disabilities and unable to work, that means they have about $500 a month for all of their other needs – food, clothing, transportation, utilities, health care supplies, emergencies, etc. They do get help to apply and wait for openings at community substance abuse programs, County mental health treatment, and can access medical care. A busy case manager will do their best to help people navigate through these cumbersome systems, coordinate our dis-functional health care system and make sure basic needs and safety are met. They will plan together for the best way to make sure that nothing puts this new valuable housing at risk. No one takes it for granted.
In every community across the country, the mission of HUD-funded Housing Authorities is “to provide housing assistance for the community’s low and moderate-income residents.” But the reality is that until recently, because of their rather rigid systems and structures, local housing authorities have had a very difficult time ensuring that housing assistance is actually reaching the very lowest income, long-term homeless population in their communities. People who need the assistance the most and qualify for it, end up sleeping on the streets for years because they don’t have an address, can’t navigate the system, have multiple health and mental health issues that get worse and worse over the years, and they and give up. One of the most successful strategies of the national 100,000 Homes Campaign is to partner local housing authorities with local housing support services and to target this population, in order to correct this historical problem. Clearly our community needs this partnership as much as the next, and fortunately our Housing Authority has been very engaged in looking what they can do. There is a lot of hope right now to make a lot of progress.
Phil Kramer Fri, Jul 06, 2012 - 7:06 am
This article touches on one of the most compelling aspects of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH); it is a more effective use of community resources, and less of a drain on the public purse, to house a medically vulnerable homeless person than to leave them languishing on the streets requiring expensive, general relief, emergency services. And, we already have a track record of success with PSH here in Santa Cruz County - we know it works, but with only 199 units administered throughout the county it’s not enough. We need to expand this successful program. To make this a reality requires a community effort, with participation from committed volunteers, and good-working partnerships with business, government and public service agencies. Both the VA and Housing Authority have worked closely with 180/180 to identify how best to connect this medically vulnerable, homeless population with supportive services and housing - we are grateful for their support.
Much of 180/180’s success and legacy will be in improved working methods and streamlined processes with these very agencies. Many 100k homes participating communities have cut in half the time it takes to identify, qualify and house a vulnerable homeless person. We can do the same here in Santa Cruz County, thus saving time and money, with the ultimate benefit of expediting the street-to-home process for chronically homeless, medically at-risk, men, women and families. To learn more and find out how you can get involved go to www.180santacruz.org.
Don Honda Sat, Jul 07, 2012 - 9:06 am
This seems like one of those moral conundrums given in a high school class: “Who to save if you only had one choice, with you in the lifeboat? Your mother, your wife, your son?” Clearly it’s crass to apply this to a real-life situation, but we must.
Does this program really become cost effective over time? I ask this as this is one of the main pro arguments. The article glosses over this point quickly. Is it fair or moral to help this population before a well-deserving Housing Authority client, who is waiting in line, who may even die before they get their assistance? Is it fair to give housing to this needy population without insisting that they must get rehab, attend counseling, take their medications? Is it fair and moral to give a key to someone who doesn’t have the presence of mind on how to use it, while someone is waiting in the wings who needs just a little help to become more self-sufficient, and perhaps can be a benefit to society rather than a lifetime drain?
We can talk about the concept of triage, who would benefit the most, with society also on the receiving end. We can talk about who gets to decide this, and whether resources would be better used elsewhere. We can talk about group homes or dormitory-style living for this special population. We can talk about the tremendous support needed to maintain them and to supervise them. We can talk about where can appropriate compassion be applied to do the most good for the most people. We can talk about who receives this help, the truly hopeless, those who can’t even fish, or those who can learn to fish for themselves. We can talk about helping only local people. We can also talk about the power structure and bureaucracy already set up to make these decisions without any oversight.
Michelle Spevy Sat, Jul 07, 2012 - 10:32 am
The SC Weekly should issue a caveat, if they plan on publishing any of these comments, that most of them are made by people involved with the local homeless service industry.
Xanthippe Tue, Jul 10, 2012 - 12:09 pm
“Or are we providing free, no-strings-attached housing for the rest of their lives? (The answer is yes, we are providing that.)”
So we’re getting these chronic hard cases off the streets, which extends their lives perhaps as much as 25 years.
How does this save money again?
Why should we save people who don’t care about themselves enough to provide even the most basic care for themselves?
RealityCheck Fri, Jul 13, 2012 - 12:16 pm
The problem with the studies that show a net savings is that they assume the average cost of incarceration, ER, etc. is a marginal cost. Unless housing these people results in fewer jails built, fewer doctors, nurses, etc. being employed/paid, then there isn’t a real savings. That may not be an issue for the advocates, but it is misleading.
How will giving Walter an apartment stop him from crashing his bike while he’s drunk? If they don’t clean up after themselves, does PSH pay someone to do it for them?
As for Christine Sippl’s comments that “no one takes it for granted”, I find that hard to believe. The law of large numbers says somebody will.