Taking a Bite Out of Homelessness

by · Published · Updated

An article in today’s Wall Street Journal notes that California has spent $17 billion on programs to end homelessness and the problem has only gotten worse.  California is home to more than 171,000 homeless individuals, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a 6.2% increase since 2020.  Roughly 67%, or more than 115,000 are unsheltered, meaning that they’re living outside.  While liberal politicians often characterize homelessness as a housing problem, with some even calling the homeless “guests,”  in reality the homeless population is primarily made up of drug addicts and the mentally ill, along with some vagrants who actually prefer living on the streets.  An OpEd in the California Globe by four law enforcement professionals suggest that there is a proven way for the state to eliminate homelessness in one year.

Because the proposal by Yolo County DA Jeff Resing, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, California DA’s Association President Greg Totten, and former Sacramento County DA Anne Marie Schubert targets drug addicts, it is unlikely that it would take all of the homeless off the streets.  But it would remove a large segment.  The magic bullet: restore consequences for the possession of hard drugs.  Since the 2014 adoption of Proposition 47, there have been no consequences in California for the possession of any hard drug.  The authors cite laws in New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and Illinois that have strict penalties for people caught with drugs like heroin, crack and fentanyl.  All of these democrat-controlled states have homeless rates that are 4 and 6 times lower than  California.   Here’s what they are suggesting:

Treatment Mandated Felony

First, prosecutors would have the discretion to charge hard drug possession as a new class of crime called a “treatment mandated felony.” The judge would have the final say on whether the defendant should be charged in this manner. The factors that the prosecutor and judge would consider in the decision would include:

  • The defendant’s prior history
  • The quantity of drugs in the defendant’s possession
  • The defendant’s amenability to drug treatment
  • Other offenses coupled with the drug possession such as illegal weapons possession

If the defendant is charged with this new, “treatment mandated felony,” an addiction specialist would be assigned to provide a complete suite of services to the defendant including:

  • Shelter
  • Drug and mental health treatment (outpatient whenever possible)
  • Job training

Decades of research have proven that drug treatment in the criminal justice system works. And there are countless shelter beds available from our billions in housing spending. But many of the beds remain empty because we have no system to incentivize people to get the help they need.

If the defendant successfully completes drug and mental treatment, they would receive full expungement of the drug charge. If the defendant refuses drug treatment, they could receive up to 18 months time served. The defendant can short-circuit this sentence at any time by choosing the treatment path instead. If the defendant is re-arrested for hard drug possession, they would be eligible for a complete do-over of the treatment path for as many times as it takes until they get better.

The goal of this proposal is to treat drugs and mental health as the humanitarian crises that they are–to get people the help they need–not to punish them, and to simultaneously reclaim the safety of our communities. But under the current legal framework, there is no accountability in the law when people refuse to get help. New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois understand this. That’s why they created tougher hard drug laws—and it has worked. The result has been exponentially lower homelessness in these states than in California.

This is a good first step.  Some of the billions in homeless funds would have to be redirected to supervised shelters set up specifically for addicts.  The dropout rate for addicts in treatment would likely be higher if they were housed in shelters along with crazies and drunks.  County detention facilities would also be needed to house addicts who refuse treatment.  Even if cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento implemented pilot programs for a year or two, the homeless population would undoubtedly decline and streets would be much safer.  But the other portions of the homeless population also need to be addressed.

California must face the reality that it is neither civilized or humane to leave the mentally ill on the streets.  While the proposed program does serve drug addicts who also suffer from mental illness, it does not address the deranged vagrants wandering the streets who do not possess hard drugs or the drunks passed out in parks and alleys. The state needs to develop mental health programs which include mandatory housing and treatment of the mentally ill homeless who present a danger to themselves and others.  The state must also pass laws prohibiting camping in public spaces.

For some, these may sound like hard choices.  The state’s current condition is the result of a refusal by our political leaders to make these hard choices.  It’s time to demand a little common sense.