PART 1: The team from HomeFirst, which handles Coordinated Entry for the county, came before the Sebastopol City Council to explain how homeless people are chosen for permanent supportive housing
Dale and Laura, thank you for your in-depth and comprehensive articles every week. The Sebastopol Times has become a very important read in my weekly awareness of all things important. You are doing a great job!
This seems like a novel, untested system to me. The programs I know that have been successful in housing unhoused people with mental health and/or addiction problems all have the following structure, or steps. First is residential recovery and addiction treatment for 3 months to a year. After that is completed successfully, social workers help individuals clients who've completed their recovery programs successfully apply for and find housing in the different units available for low income folks, including seniors. Seems to me like the Sonoma County program is going in a different direction, rather than following the best practices of successful Bay Area programs for housing unhoused folks. If active drug and alcohol users are included in low income, affordable housing communities, one can expect problems like have been described.
It's like we're missing a big part of the standard approach, here in Sonoma County, like we have untrained do-gooders instead of trained professionals calling the shots, designing the programs. And where are the county social workers? Have those jobs been farmed out to the non-profits the county contracts with? Or have the social worker positions been de-funded over the years?
Sadly, it is not only Sonoma County, but the entire nation that has embraced a "Housing First" philosophy (mandated through HUD), which does not require drug treatment before placement. In fact, under "Housing First" you are not allowed to discriminate against drug users because the philosophy goes, they'll be more likely to get clean if they're housed. And sometimes that works. And sometimes it doesn't. In fact, the only politician I've heard come out strongly against Housing First and its stand on drug use and addiction is--hold on to your hat--Donald Trump. Don't shoot the messenger.
Yes, thank you Laura, very helpful explanation. I didn't really understand Housing First before.
I just read a May 2024 CalMatters article about proposed bills that would have allowed some amount of Sober Housing under Housing First, and then an October 3, 2025 California Globe story about how a bill that would have allowed counties to devote 10% of their housing the unhoused funds to Sober housing passed the legislature unanimously, but was vetoed by the Governor.
To which I can only say Hmmph. I guess it's time for me to write Governor Newsom. I support allowing 10% to go to Sober housing.
I’m probably mixing apples and oranges. But would be interesting to compare the Housing first approach against the AA Alcoholics Anonymous program. Their success rate, costs, etc.
Having many friends, who I would have never guessed were/are AAers, got into this program with their fellow drunks, and daily work through their issues together and seem to function decently well in society. All at little or no cost to themselves, no big organization structure to support financial, and little financial cost to society.
Contrast Housing First, with a massively costly structure, all outsiders directing and encouraging folks what to do. In the Housing First model, much of the responsibility seems to get shifted to society.
Dale and Laura, thanks for your in-depth look at how homeless placements are made.
I have to agree with Madeline comments, that the approach being taken by HomeFirst/Coordinated Entry should be questioned. Their approach is to Prioritize the most vulnerability, which sounds like the most noble, humane way to go. But equally important, shouldn’t there be a consideration and a prioritization for those most likely to succeed out of homeless and/or those willing to accept treatment/follow the rules/stop taking drugs/being a good neighbor in an apt complex/etc.? Most citizens are willing to help those who want to help themselves become independent and contribute to society.
I suspect many of the “most vulnerable” are most vulnerable for a reason. Either they can’t help themselves or won’t help themselves and accordingly spending our limited time and resources is likely unproductive and the least bang for the buck. Not to be heartless, just realistic.
I wonder how many empty housing units there are in the county. Somehow, we must learn to intelligently, fairly and compassionately re-distribute the wealth in this country.
Was it "During that time, about 2,500 people have left the system into permanent housing, and about 3,600 people are served by the system each year." At a rate of three a week, I'm not sure how they get to 2,500--even with a few whole housing complexes thrown in there. I'll follow up on this.
Dale and Laura, thank you for your in-depth and comprehensive articles every week. The Sebastopol Times has become a very important read in my weekly awareness of all things important. You are doing a great job!
This seems like a novel, untested system to me. The programs I know that have been successful in housing unhoused people with mental health and/or addiction problems all have the following structure, or steps. First is residential recovery and addiction treatment for 3 months to a year. After that is completed successfully, social workers help individuals clients who've completed their recovery programs successfully apply for and find housing in the different units available for low income folks, including seniors. Seems to me like the Sonoma County program is going in a different direction, rather than following the best practices of successful Bay Area programs for housing unhoused folks. If active drug and alcohol users are included in low income, affordable housing communities, one can expect problems like have been described.
It's like we're missing a big part of the standard approach, here in Sonoma County, like we have untrained do-gooders instead of trained professionals calling the shots, designing the programs. And where are the county social workers? Have those jobs been farmed out to the non-profits the county contracts with? Or have the social worker positions been de-funded over the years?
Thank you.
Reference for my comment below: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/welfare-and-institutions-code/wic-sect-8255/
Sadly, it is not only Sonoma County, but the entire nation that has embraced a "Housing First" philosophy (mandated through HUD), which does not require drug treatment before placement. In fact, under "Housing First" you are not allowed to discriminate against drug users because the philosophy goes, they'll be more likely to get clean if they're housed. And sometimes that works. And sometimes it doesn't. In fact, the only politician I've heard come out strongly against Housing First and its stand on drug use and addiction is--hold on to your hat--Donald Trump. Don't shoot the messenger.
Yes, thank you Laura, very helpful explanation. I didn't really understand Housing First before.
I just read a May 2024 CalMatters article about proposed bills that would have allowed some amount of Sober Housing under Housing First, and then an October 3, 2025 California Globe story about how a bill that would have allowed counties to devote 10% of their housing the unhoused funds to Sober housing passed the legislature unanimously, but was vetoed by the Governor.
To which I can only say Hmmph. I guess it's time for me to write Governor Newsom. I support allowing 10% to go to Sober housing.
I’m probably mixing apples and oranges. But would be interesting to compare the Housing first approach against the AA Alcoholics Anonymous program. Their success rate, costs, etc.
Having many friends, who I would have never guessed were/are AAers, got into this program with their fellow drunks, and daily work through their issues together and seem to function decently well in society. All at little or no cost to themselves, no big organization structure to support financial, and little financial cost to society.
Contrast Housing First, with a massively costly structure, all outsiders directing and encouraging folks what to do. In the Housing First model, much of the responsibility seems to get shifted to society.
Dale and Laura, thanks for your in-depth look at how homeless placements are made.
I have to agree with Madeline comments, that the approach being taken by HomeFirst/Coordinated Entry should be questioned. Their approach is to Prioritize the most vulnerability, which sounds like the most noble, humane way to go. But equally important, shouldn’t there be a consideration and a prioritization for those most likely to succeed out of homeless and/or those willing to accept treatment/follow the rules/stop taking drugs/being a good neighbor in an apt complex/etc.? Most citizens are willing to help those who want to help themselves become independent and contribute to society.
I suspect many of the “most vulnerable” are most vulnerable for a reason. Either they can’t help themselves or won’t help themselves and accordingly spending our limited time and resources is likely unproductive and the least bang for the buck. Not to be heartless, just realistic.
Hey Mighty - Check out my answers to Madeline Solomon. They pertain to your comment.
I wonder how many empty housing units there are in the county. Somehow, we must learn to intelligently, fairly and compassionately re-distribute the wealth in this country.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
The apparent refusal to address the disconnect between their goals and who was living there is crucially deficient to me.
Could not agree more.
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Plus bad grammar, what a deal
explain?
Was it "During that time, about 2,500 people have left the system into permanent housing, and about 3,600 people are served by the system each year." At a rate of three a week, I'm not sure how they get to 2,500--even with a few whole housing complexes thrown in there. I'll follow up on this.