A push to bring rehabilitation in the homeless model “ housing first ” of the state

After a long journey of personal recovery and years of volunteering as the peer advisor of drug addiction, Thea Golden launched her own recovery house.

She and her husband, Tyler, bought a house in the Jefferson Park district west of the USC, became an illegally converted garage into an authorized ADU, formed an non -profit organization and published a word via their unofficial social services network that they had two beds for women looking for a sober environment.

Its small program, the Recovery Connect, opened its doors in 2021. Since then, five registered have lived in the unit behind their house and went to their own accommodation – two found the family and three in their own house by paying their own path.

Now Golden wants to buy or rent another house and add four or five more beds. But even if she houses people who would otherwise be homeless, Golden does not have access to the hundreds of millions of California Dollars distributed each year to do exactly that.

A 2016 law adopting the “Housing First” model as a state policy prohibits the money from the State’s homelessness to be spent on abstinence programs. The justification is that there should not be any condition, such as religious indoctrination or required sobriety, on a homeless person who receives accommodation.

This could change this year, because even some of the strongest supporters of the accommodation first rethink this rigid restriction, in the midst of increasing evidence that a large share of homeless would prefer to live in a sober environment.

“When we adopted our law of” housing first “, we were so determined to reduce the obstacles to drug addicts that we inadvertently created new obstacles to drug addicts that wanted to become sober,” said Adrian Covert, main vice-president of Bay Area Council policy.

The assembly Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), which supports the “Housing First” policy, is now pushing legislation that would modify it to allow the financing of sober houses. The bill, AB 255, would authorize local jurisdictions to channel up to a quarter of their state roaming funds with residential programs that practice sobriety. A previous version of the last legislative session died within the credit committee. Haney has made changes to the opposition of the opposition, and the new bill was transmitted by the assembly housing and health committees. It is now in credits.

“If someone wants to leave a fatal and dangerous drug like fentanyl, it must often be as far as possible, and yet the state currently prohibits one of our funding to go towards effective and proven models of drug -free recovery housing,” said Haney in an interview. “It’s counterproductive. It’s bad. For many people, it’s dangerous.”

The member of the Democratic Assembly Matt Haney talks about a bill at the Capitol in Sacramento in 2023.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

The debate on the bill is articulated around the perceived incompatibility of the “recovery” housing which obliges residents to maintain sobriety with the policy of “reduction of misdeeds” which “recognizes the consumption of drugs and alcohol and dependence within the framework of the life of the tenants”, as defined in current law.

In a 2015 policy thesis, the American Department of Housing and Urban Development said that recovery housing “can fulfill a unique and specific role in the homeless services of a community and behavioral health systems”.

California went in the other direction, however, adopting SB 1380, written by the Senator of the Holly Mitchell State, which required that the housing programs follow the principle according to which “the accommodation should not be refused to anyone, even if they abuse alcohol or other substances”.

For suppliers of recovery housing like Golden, who have indeed closed the door to the financing of the State such as the housing, help and prevention program of the homeless of several billion dollars.

Haney’s bill responds to the leading support for a counter argument which, as practiced currently, the reduction of misdeeds is in fact harmful for people looking for sobriety by forcing them to housing where drugs and alcohol are used.

“We are trying to break the relapse cycle of those in recovery,” said the defender of the Salvation Army recovery Tom Wolf, to the Assembly Health Committee during an April hearing. “People are leaving treatment after a 90-day Medi-Cal program and they are placed in a SRO where everyone around them still consumes drugs. If you try to be clean and sober in this environment in this same district of Skid Row or Tenle-Tendre, it’s almost impossible. ”

Supporters of the bill cite recent surveys showing a high connection of the consumption of substances with homelessness and a preference of more than a third of the homeless homeless for accommodation based on abstinence.

There is no opposition organized in the Haney bill, which he modified to reconcile the two philosophical positions. It is necessary that a misdeed reduction option must be available for anyone offered recovery accommodation. The relapse cannot be a cause of expulsion, and the supplier must help a tenant who wishes to leave the program to find another accommodation according to the principles where abstinence is not required.

A handwritten sign directs people in recovery in the courtyard of Thea and Tyler Golden for a meeting.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Housing California, a advocacy group that supports accommodation first, is not currently opposed to the bill but still has objections that he hopes may be drawn up in the State Senate, said politicians Christopher Martin.

“We think there is a place for a sober life,” said Martin. “We want to make sure that he is not abused.”

Martin said that housing in California fears that the bill can lead too much money to restore houses and try to reduce the limit from 25% to 10%.

Haney said that he had negotiated this threshold with homeless service providers, but that he was still open to discuss any objection.

There are also concerns about chronic complaints concerning the bad operators who abuse insurance or summarily expel residents who relapse.

“There are a ton of large suppliers who follow great practices,” said Martin. “We have to protect ourselves from the worst behavior.”

In four proceedings against a network of for -profit recovery houses, lawyer Karen Gold alleges that his customers have been transported to California from other states, hidden in poorly supervised houses, then put on the street when their insurance was exhausted.

“From my point of view, any level of care is as good as it is regulated,” said Gold. “The more all the levels of care are regulated, the more you will get better results.”

The bill requires that the State Department of Health Services establish the certification of recovery houses and adopt standards. He specifies that these could come from a private association, the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, from a government agency, toxicominse and Mental Health Services Administration, or from another unrecognized group.

While the two parties develop their political disagreements, the practical implications for small suppliers such as Golden remain in the air.

Golden said that it followed the directives of another group, California Consortium for drug and professional programs, but has not requested certification.

People on recovery meet in the backyard of Goldens.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

She does not know how her policy on relapses is integrated. This is a complex problem. The relapse is generally accepted as a natural part of recovery. A first relapse would be managed by the peer council. A second would probably lead to a referral to ambulatory treatment and a third to a residential treatment program with the bed held for the resident’s return.

Golden said she would try to find alternative accommodation for someone who abandons abstinence. She has not yet had to see but can see the possibility.

“It is a difficult space to enter when you enter the Nitty-Gritty and it is the daily routine and we keep this structure and we have a curfew,” said Golden. “If this is not an overview for you, let’s do ourselves in the next step.”

Without access to the formal housing system, this could be problematic. Until now, Golden residents who have graduated have found new houses through its informal recovery network. Another option that she has not yet had to use is to share!, A non -profit organization based in Ass City where she received her training as an advisor by peers and voluntary. SHARE! Supports recovery meetings across the county and rents approximately 40 single -family houses which provide low -cost housing in rooms shared with support for peers.

SHARE! Worked with Haney during his first bill and hopes to have access to the financing of the State, said Jason Robison, director of advocacy, commercial development and training.

But it is not clear if his shared chamber model would be consistent with language in the law requiring housing funded by the State “”Ensure the individual rights of privacy, dignity and respect. »»

“Sharing rooms is an essential element” for both types of housing at Share!, Said Robinson. “In models based on abstinence, if someone relapse, it is much more likely to overdose and die if they have their own room.”

He said that houses maximize intimacy with outdoor seats, family rooms, dens and home offices “so that people can choose to be alone or with other people when they are outside their rooms.”

For Golden, and hundreds of other small recovery programs, there is no direct path to obtain state money. The bill authorizes local agencies to finance the recovery housing. This money is distributed by auctions and generally goes to large non -profit organizations such as Path and people concerning.

Covert, from Bay Area Council, thinks that insofar as local agencies choose to invest in recovery houses, it would be to extend the offer of new constructions.

“I would be surprised if an important sum of money was going to programs that are currently providing services,” said Covert.

Even if it never gets direct financial support, Golden still sees advantages in the change of policy.

“I am a defender of the opening of services to people and if it is not us – I want this to be the case – but if this is not the case, I am still here to be a defender of what opens in other places that I know that it would help.”