On the limits of citations and arrests for combating panhandling and homelessness in San Antonio

An opinion column by John Brodesky in the Express-News (Dec. 12) lamented the limits of citations and arrests for dealing with panhandling and homelessness in downtown San Antonio. The article opened:

In its never-ending war on panhandling, the San Antonio Police Department has been deploying vice detectives to issue citations for aggressive solicitation.

All through the summer, vice detectives arrested people such as Rafael Alvarado for begging for money and wandering into traffic at busy intersections.

If the goal was to waste lots of time and energy, the tickets were a slam dunk. An analysis of city documents reveals an aggressive campaign against panhandlers — likened to a quota by one expert — that has produced plenty of citations and little else.

Most everyone agrees citing panhandlers is a waste of time. But public pressure to do something, the short-term benefit of moving people out of a problematic area and a lack of other options keep the citations flowing. Meanwhile, a pilot program to steer panhandlers toward treatment has languished due to a lack of funding.

If only we were as aggressive with preventive strategies.

Brodesky quoted a city memo from September declaring that “SAPD has initiated a citywide zero tolerance program on panhandlers and conducts weekly round-ups with arrests.” Nobody thinks that it's working but cops and politicians want to be seen as doing something, however pointless, and pols would rather pay for show than substance.

To Brodesky, "Municipal Court for a panhandler is like circling through a revolving door. The ones taken there loop through it without ever paying their fines because they are indigent, instead getting credit for time served. Factor in transporting and holding panhandlers, or the work hours put into citing them, and it’s downright costly." Thousands of these "quality of life" citations against repeat offenders were dismissed by the SA municipal court in 2014, he pointed out, as "defective" and pointless. His column concluded:

The department’s “mental health squad,” a six-person unit that responds to calls where a person might have mental illness, has saved taxpayers millions by placing offenders of minor offenses in treatment rather than jail.

In fact, [Chief William] McManus, Judge [John] Bull and a number of other judges and stakeholders have considered a similar pilot program for 10-15 panhandlers, but it hasn’t had much success, if any. The issue? Well, it’s ironic, really, but there is no money for it.

“Who is going to pay for the thing, or where are the beds going to be?” Bull asked.

Maybe then, our priority shouldn’t be more panhandling tickets, but funding this pilot program.

Really, it couldn’t be any less effective or wasteful.

San Antonio may criminalize giving to panhandlers

According to AP: Unable to dissuade panhandlers from asking people for money, the San Antonio police chief now wants authority for his officers to write Class C tickets to passersby who give people spare change! Problem is, asking for money is speech and, after Citizens United ruling, we all know money is speech. So First Amendment red flags abound.

Here's Texas Civil Rights Project legal director Wayne Krause's money quote in the AP story, "The idea of criminalizing people giving is both unkind and legally unsound. ... The First Amendment protects the right to ask for help. It certainly protects the right to choose to whom we give assistance."

It's great TCRP is fighting this, but it's too bad there wasn't any clergy in the room. Somebody could have quoted to the council from Matthew 25:36-47. Perhaps some of them will have time to review those passages before the ordinance comes before them next month.

Healthcare at reentry helps prevent recidivism

This article from Medicine@Yale makes an argument Grits has posited before, particularly as it relates to mental health services: That expanding Medicaid - in particular providing care to indigent ex-cons and covering hospital costs for prisoners - would reduce both costs and recidivism while improving public safety. Inmates leaving prison "don’t know how to find health insurance or medical care. And many quickly wind up in emergency departments with overdoses or exacerbations of chronic diseases that were being treated in prison."

“Obamacare is key to reducing recidivism,” [Dr. Emily] Wang says. She adds, however, that the reverse is also true. Over one-fifth of people eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansion are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. Many are young and healthy, making them attractive to insurance companies looking to dilute their risk pools. Far from being burdensome, then, these individuals may strengthen the health care system—much as their involvement has made the TCN more effective.

“In order for the Affordable Care Act to work,” Wang says, “you have to get former prisoners involved.”

Speaking of the intersection between healthcare and reentry, a story on NPR this week lauded San Antonio's proactive approach to mental health, fielding specially trained officers to deal with the mentally ill and establishing an effective diversion program to keep them out of the system. The key was for stakeholders to chip in to

create the Restoration Center. It offers a 48-hour inpatient psychiatric unit; outpatient services for psychiatric and primary care; centers for drug or alcohol detox; a 90-day recovery program for substance abuse; plus housing for people with mental illnesses, and even job training.

More than 18,000 people pass through the Restoration Center each year, and officials say the coordinated approach has saved the city more than $10 million annually.

'Want treatment for mental illness in Houston? Go to jail'

See the excellent story in the Texas Observer by Emily DePrang (Jan. 13) with the same title as this post. Here's a notable excerpt that pegs the lack of mental health treatment resources in the justice system to the state's failure to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a factor this blog has previously lamented:

Committees to address jail overcrowding, border security

The House County Affairs Committee will meet Thursday in El Paso, and one of items addressed will be their interim charge to "Conduct a general study of issues facing county jails. The study should include innovative ways to address overcrowding, the impact homelessness has on the county jail population, and recommendations for handling inmates undergoing detoxification and withdrawal from drugs and alcohol."

Grits can't attend, but I'm curious: What recommendations would readers offer to address crowded jails, homelessness, and "inmates undergoing detoxification"?

In another away-from-the-capitol hearing, the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee meets this morning in Copperas Cove to:

Examine the extent of interstate coordination concerning border security and intelligence sharing and determine whether any changes to state law are needed to enhance that coordination and cooperation.

Examine state and federal law to determine whether existing provisions adequately address security and efficiency concerns for steamship agencies and land ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border.  Evaluate whether the state and the federal government have provided sufficient manpower, infrastructure, and technology to personnel in the border region.

Regrettably, neither of these events will be broadcast live.

Huge savings from supportive housing for chronic homeless

Grits was interested to see a report out of California about a supportive housing program created for the 30 most expensive, chronic homeless people in San Diego, which reportedly has about 9,800 homeless folks citywide. What struck me is how a) a small number of homeless people account for a disproportionate share of cost to the taxpayers, and b) targeting services to a relatively small number of people resulted in significant savings. Reported the local NBC affiliate:

The initiative housed 30 homeless people in San Diego who were estimated to be costing taxpayers over $11 million in public resources, according to data from the project.

The participants on average absorbed nearly $318,000 before entering the program, estimated in emergency room visits, ambulance transports, in-patient medical stays, arrests and jail days. Those who enrolled were often disabled and continuously homeless for over a year.

After almost a year of being in the program, analysts estimated that the cost of supporting the average participant was about $97,400.

Overall, the project resulted in a nearly 70 percent reduction in costs to taxpayers, the analysts said.

Not every homeless person needs long-term supportive housing. Most homelessness is temporary and transitional, so for them, short-term supports are adequate. But for a small number of chronic homeless - particularly frequent flyers in local jails who may be arrested dozens of times on petty charges - the cost-benefit analysis of business as usual often reaches absurdist proportions.

The problem with such programs is that the costs of homelessness are spread out among many entities - the city, county, state, Medicaid, local hospitals, etc. - and not all those will pay into supportive housing. So the societal cost is tremendous but there is a free-rider problem among institutions that would see costs reduced. On paper, taxpayers overall benefit tremendously. But in practice, when one arm of government pays the freight, the savings are so spread out that that entity may not see a reduction in their own bottom line.

That's why I think it's smart to target a handful of the most expensive, chronic homeless folks for a pilot, identifying people for whom the economics of supportive housing come out positive even for the government entity ponying up the bucks. This is not a problem which may be resolved with a snap of a finger. I'd like to see more Texas cities and counties take on this topic in the same way San Diego did: Start small, demonstrate the concept, and build on success. (Fort Worth has begun to embrace supportive housing, but in Texas they're an outlier.) Often government does nothing on homelessness - or relegates the issue to law enforcement - because doing everything needed would be so expensive that policymakers become paralyzed. In that context, chipping away at the issue around the edges is preferable to throwing up one's hands and simply declaring nothing can be done, or worse, criminalizing homelessness instead of focusing on reducing it.