Jessica, 34, says she would love to get off fentanyl but worries it’s not possible while homeless. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)
Hey! Planning for the caterpillar-to-butterfly (we hope) transformation of California’s mental health system — spending billions to tackle homelessness, addiction and mental illness on our streets — is happening. Right now.
And since ours is the most directly impacted region, the Southern California Sober Living Task Force strongly urges locals to weigh in loud, clear and at the very top of their lungs.
The California Department of Health Care Services — yes, the very department savaged by critics for doing next-to-nothing to regulate addiction treatment facilities — held its first monthly, public “listening session” on April 19 in the wake of Proposition 1’s passage.
These virtual sessions seek wisdom on how the state could/should spend $6.4 billion in bond proceeds, and will run monthly through October. The next meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. on May 29. All are welcome but you must register at www.dhcs.ca.gov/BHT/Pages/Stakeholder-Engagement.aspx.
The first session concentrated on how to distribute $4.3 billion in competitive grants. It, and the others, will be posted online within 10 days for folks who can’t make it in real-time. Check www.dhcs.ca.gov/BHT/Pages/home.aspx for updates, and share thoughts by email to BHTinfo@DHCS.ca.gov.
An urgent missive from Wendy Bucknum, Mission Viejo councilmember and Task Force co-chair, went out to members, suggesting folks share their thoughts on how the state might factor the geographic concentration of sober living and recovery homes into funding decisions, as well as, say, setting aside resources for additional enforcement and regulation of the new facilities it shepherds into existence.
“We have an opportunity to have a say,” Caroline Grinder of the League of California Cities told Task Force members. “We do believe they should consider overconcentration in certain regions.”
Nowhere to go but up?
DHCS doesn’t have a stellar track record keeping an eye on the 1,800 or so facilities it already licenses and/or certifies.
“I don’t think anyone would dispute that there’s been virtually no enforcement,” said Sen. Tom Umberg last week. “I think the department would agree their resources are inadequate. In our part of the state, there are virtually no site visits.”
Umberg, D-Santa Ana, was defending Senate Bill 913, one of six rehab-related bills pending in this Legislative Session. His bill would extend the state’s exclusive power to respond to complaints about state-licensed addiction treatment centers to local officials, like city attorneys.
A state audit of how well DHCS does its job was requested by Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, last year, originally due right about now. But it was knocked off track, is back on track, and is now slated to be wrapped up by fall. Local cities groaning under the weight of complaints about unruly facilities hope it will provide the hard, cold, evidence that so many legislators in Sacramento currently dismiss as NIMBY-ism.
In the absence of accountability and transparency, SoCal cities are getting serious about holding the state’s regulatory feet to the fire.
Nonprofit
Mission Viejo has been footing the bill for legal and policy expertise for the Task Force since its inception more than a year ago, and now it’s incorporating as a nonprofit. The Association of California Cities-Orange County is slated to take on financial and administrative management, and Bucknum asked member cities to pony up $7,500 a year to help cover its $195,000 budget.
“Given the absence of meaningful state or local enforcement capability, ongoing litigation involving the regulation of sober living homes, and mounting public outcry over safety concerns and quality-of-life issues, the Task Force was formed to serve as collaborative vehicle for solving what has become a rapidly growing regional challenge,” Bucknum said in an update for members.
The Task Force now consists of a bipartisan coalition of local and state elected officials, law enforcement, administrative staffers, subject matter experts and residents working together, she said. They recognize that that sober living and recovery homes can be vital in the recovery process, but also recognize that there are irresponsible and even criminal operators preying on vulnerable people.
Transparency hasn’t been a hallmark. Assembly Bill 2081 by Task Force co-chair and Assemblymember Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel is an attempt to address that by requiring state-licensed and/or certified programs to disclose, on their own websites, “if a legal, disciplinary or other enforcement action has been brought” by state regulators, and the program was found to be in violation. The web disclosure would have to include the violation’s date and nature, and there’d be a $2,500 civil penalty for failure to comply.
Denver smokes fentanyl in the alley. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)
There are excellent ideas in this bills, but we’re not holding our breath. Sacramento is often where excellent ideas go to die, at least in the rehab realm, but the consistent push-push-push from SoCal neighbors and cities and legislators over recent years is forcing the dawning realization in Sacramento that something is amiss in paradise, and that it needs fixing.
Related Articles
Move over, fentanyl? Stimulant overdose deaths are rising fast
Cities would share power to probe addiction treatment complaints under Umberg bill
Gov. Newsom, the drug that kills most Americans is on grocery store shelves
Addiction treatment violations finally would be public under Assembly bill
