The Oct 7 LA Times story -- headlined "Are many homeless people in L.A.mentally ill? New findings back public's perception" -- found that the L.A. Homeless Service's Authority's use of federal reporting guidelines effectively resulted in significantly understating the percentage of L.A.'s homeless population with a mental illness or substance abuse disorder(s).

[LATimes text] "The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which conducts the annual count, narrowly interpreted the data to produce much lower numbers. In its presentation of the results to elected officials earlier this year, the agency said only 29% of the homeless population had either a mental illness or substance abuse disorder and, therefore, 71% "did not have a serious mental illness and/or report substance use disorder."

The Times, however, found that about 67% had either a mental illness or a substance abuse disorder. Individually, substance abuse affects 46% of those living on the streets -- more than three times the rate previously reported -- and mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder, affects 51% of those living on the streets, according to the analysis.

The homeless services authority did not dispute what The Times found. Rather, Heidi Marston, the agency’s acting executive director, explained that its report was in a format required by federal guidelines, leading to a different interpretation of the statistics.

"We're acknowledging that there are more layers to the story," Marston said.

The Times analysis aligns with a national study released Sunday by the California Policy Lab at UCLA, which found even higher rates in most categories. It also found that a mental health "concern" affected 78% of the unsheltered population and a substance abuse "concern," 75%." [end Times text]

[Scroll down for further.]

The Times story noted that a day earlier, the UCLA-based CA Policy Lab issued a report ("Health Conditions Among Unsheltered Adults in the U.S.") that found the national data disparity even greater than what the LATimes analysis found in L.A.'s homeless count. In a summary of its findings, the UCLA-based CA Policy Lab states:

...Unsheltered adults are far more likely to report suffering from chronic health conditions, mental health issues, and experiences with trauma and substance abuse problems as compared to homeless people who are living in shelters. As policymakers design interventions for unsheltered individuals and balance investments in emergency housing and permanent housing, they will need to consider whether emergency housing is adequate or appropriate for a highly vulnerable population, half of whom are trimorbid.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Earlier today (Oct.,7), LBREPORT.com invited comments/response from LBDHHS Dir. Kelly Colopy who indicated she's reviewed the information with her team and some questions remain at day's end...and thus she's seeking further clarity prior to providing a response.

In June 2019, LB's Dept. of Health and Human Services released details results of its Jan. 2019 Point in Time homeless count. Its June report indicated that 24% of LB's counted homeless population had a "substance abuse disorder" and 34% had "serious mental illness."

In reporting those figures LBDHHS acknowledged that its reported homeless subpopulations are "self-reported" and also include "duplicate counts."

Sponsor

Sponsor

The LA Times and UCLA studies arguably invite rethinking some assumptions underlying current government and private sector policies toward homeless/vagrant populations that, critics say, have contributed to -- or worsened -- public safety, public health, neighborhood and taxpayer impacts. A majority of homeless advocacy groups and government agencies currently advocate a "housing first" approach, but that view has been increasingly questioned by others who say mental illness and substance abuse are the primary drivers of increasingly visible homeless/vagrant issues. Critics of current policy acknowledge that a housing shortage plays a role in the problem, but argue that housing-focused policies alone are ultimately incompassionate toward mentally ill/drug addicted homeless/vagrant persons and have invited threats to public health.

Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia (who doesn't set city policy) has acknowledged homelessness in LB is complex with multiple aspects but has sought to steer discussion mainly toward Sacramento policies that emphasizing housing (including below market/subsidized "affordable" housing.) In 2018, Garcia created an "Everyone Home Task Force" for which he selected a combination of developers (including "affordable housing" developers), homeless service providers and a number of LB establishment figures. His Task Force then produced a Dec. 2018 "Everyone Home" report contending LB needs thousands of new housing units, expansion of current policies and millions of dollars for additional programs.

On a separate track, Councilman Rex Richardson has been soliciting contributions (as of June 30 over $200,000) from affordable housing developers and homeless service providers for a future revenue-raising (read: tax imposing) LB ballot measure (LBREPORT.com coverage here.)

At last week's (Oct. 1, 2019) City Council meeting, Councilwoman Suzie Price prevailed in a 4-3 vote (Yes: Price, Supernaw, Mungo, Austin; No: Richardson, Uranga, Pearce...with Andrews absent) to have the City Attorney draft a resolution -- scheduled to return to the City Council for voted approval this coming Tuesday Oct. 8 -- supporting a "Friend of the Court" brief approved by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the 9th circuit federal appeals court opinion in Martin v. City of Boise. Three appeals court judges held that it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to enforce criminal provisions of local laws against vagrants/homeless unless local gov't provides sufficient shelter beds for all of its homeless/vagrants. [The L.A. County Supervisors vote was 3-2 (Yes: Hahn, Ridley-Thomas, Barger; No: Kuehl, Solis.) to urge the Supreme Court to hear the Boise case and overturn the lower court opinion.]

Council discussion on Oct. 8 could be similarly intense with an uncertain outcome. Council discussion on Oct. 1 was sharply polarized. Lead-agendizer Councilwoman Price framed the issue as supporting the right of the City to enforce its local anti-camping ordinances. Councilman Richardson opposed her motion, framing the issue as local capacity in providing sufficient shelter beds.

Mayor Garcia exited earlier in the meeting and wasn't present on the Council vote. It's currently unclear how Vice Mayor Andrews will vote when the item returns to the Council on Oct. 8. (If Andrews were to vote "no" and the other Councilmembers maintain their Oct 1 positions, the result would be a 4-4 deadlock and no action would be taken by the City of Long Beach. If Andrews votes "yes" (producing a 5-3 Council vote) will Mayor Garcia veto the Council action, requiring six Council votes to override?

And the issue could have upcoming election implications. A November 5, 2019 special election will decide who fills the currently vacant 1st dist. Council seat. To our knowledge, to date none of the 1st district candidates have indicated whether they favor overturning the federal appeals court opinion. Garcia's stance, and Richardson's could become issues in that campaign as they've both endorsed candidate Mary Zendejas in the race.

In March 2020, incumbents will seek re-election in districts 2, 4, 6 and 8. Challengers have surfaced thus far in districts 2, 6 and 8. Austin district 8 (and Supernaw in district 4) are on record as favoring review and potential overturning of the lower court opinion; 2nd dist. incumbent Pearce has already voted once on Oct. 1 to oppose U.S. Supreme Court review.

As also previously reported by LBREPORT.com, earlier this year Sacramento lawmakers refused to advance a bill -- SB 640 -- by state Senator John Moorlach (R. Irvine) that proposed to amend state law that already permits the involuntarily treatment of individuals who are "gravely disabled" to also include [legislative counsel's digest] "a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is incapable of making informed decisions about, or providing for, the person's own basic personal needs for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care or shelter without significant supervision and assistance from another person and, as a result of being incapable of making these informed decisions, the person is at risk of substantial bodily harm, dangerous worsening of a concomitant serious physical illness, significant psychiatric deterioration, or mismanagement of the person’s essential needs that could result in bodily harm."

SB 640 gained early support from the CA District Attorneys Association, the CA Police Chiefs Association -- and the politically progressive City of Santa Monica -- but was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, CA Hospital Association (unless amended), Disability Rights California, Mental Health America of Northern CA, SEIU California and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

At an April 8, 2019 hearing in the state Senate Health Committee, Sen. Moorlach explained his basis for reforming current state law; he brought witnesses offering compelling testimony in support of SB 640; Committee Dems politely thanked Sen. Moorlach and his witnesses for raising the issue but raised various objections to it in its initially offered form. Several indicated they'd vote "no" on it (blocking it), leading Sen. Moorlach to offer to make SB 640 a "two year bill" that he could try to amend to address objections they raised. To see/hear in detail what was said and what took place, see VIDEO below:

The Committee withheld a vote on SB 640, which remains in the state Senate Health Committee; if/when it returns with offered amendments, one of the state Senate Health Committee members who may hear it and vote on it is former LB Councilwoman/now state Senator Lena Gonzalez (D, LB/SE L.A. County).

Although the politically-progressive City of Santa Monica supported SB 640, the City of Long Beach took no position on it. The LB City Council's "State Legislation Committee" (Austin, Richardson and [now-exited] Gonzalez) didn't discuss it or hold any Committee meetings on any advancing state legislation in 2019.

Developing.

Sponsor

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.