SR 301-004-02 (8)
~, .
CA:RMM:rcgrave1
CIty CounCIl MeetIng 1-29-87
II-C
JAM ;. Y '985
Santa MonIca. CalIfornIa
:3 -o! - 00 t./ ---02--
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and CIty CounCIl
FROM:
CIty Attorney
SUBJECT:
Homeless In Santa MOPICS
On December 4, 1984. the CIty Attorney released a Report
to
~he CIty CounCIl on ~he Homeless In Santa MonIca.
At Its
meetIng on December
11, 1984, the CIty CounCIl scheduled a
publIC hearIng on
the homeless for January 1985, and among
other
directed
the City Attorney to prepare a
actIons,
resolutIon urgIng the adoptIon of state legIslatIon to address
problems of
homeless, to contInue legal
the men tall y
III
research on the faIlure of t~e County of Los Angeles to meet
IS oblIgatIons toward the homeless population, and to report
to
the CIty CounCil
to address
on ordInance alternatIves
concerns about people sleepIng
In automobIles In reSIdentIal
neIghborhoods.
Subsequent
to the release of the City Attorney's report
on the homeless, conSIderable local and natIonal attentIon has
been
Over the holIday
focused on the plIght of the homeless.
season a
tent.:
cIty was erected In central
Los Angeles to
prOVIde
shelter
for
the homeless.
temporary
emergency
CongressIonal
the homeless were held
hearIngs on
In Los
Angeles
Fa llowlng
on
the same day tent cIty was erected.
1
II-C
JAN 2 9 1985
I
....
..
closure of the tent CIty, the CIty of Los Angeles establIshed
and
funded a temporary emergency shelter for 138 people.
The
shelter
located on
land donated by the CIty was bUIlt WIth
donated labor and materIals from constructIon unIon members.
The
recent
cold weather strIkIng many parts of the
country has also focused attentIon on the homeless.
The cold
weather has caused
the deaths of
homeless people In CItIes
such as MInneapolIS and Atlanta.
Homeles5ness IS a natIonal problem reqUIrIng federal and
state
legIslatIon and fundIng to deal WIth It 1n a systematIC
and comprehenSIve manner.
IndIVIdual CItIes lIke Santa MonIca
Carma t
elImInate the root causes of homelessness or alleVIate
Its most serIOUS consequences.
AccordIngly, thIS Staff Report
addresses speCIfIC areas where CIty actIon may be successful
In addreSSIng speCIfIC problems of the homeless.
ThIS Staff Report 15 dIVided Into four parts:
I.
Recommendation
to Adopt ResolutIon UrgIng State
LegislatIon
to
Address
the Problems of
the
Menta lly III Home less (Page 4).
II.
AnalYSIS of
the
FaIlure of
the County of Los
Angeles
to
comply WIth
the Lanterman-PetrIs-
Short Act (Page 6).
I I 1.
AnalYSIS of
the FaIlure
of
the County of Los
Angeles
to Meet
Its Mandatory Legal
Du t Y t 0
PrOVIde Shelter for the Homeless (Page 31).
2
. ~
...
"
I IJ.
Analysls
Automobiles
49) .
of
Restrlctions
In Residential
IJ. Recommendatlons (Page 54).
3
on
Sleeplng
Nelghborhoods
In
l Page
1 ~
1. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION URGIHG STATE
LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF THE MENTALLY
ILL HOMELESS.
In the Report to the City Council on the Homeless In
Santa Monica, the CI ty Attorney extensively discussed the
structure and function of the State Mental Health System and
Its
Impact on homelessness.
The City Attorney recommended to
the
Council
that
It
should seek enactment
and support
legislation deSigned to alleViate the plight of the homeless
mentally 111.
The accompanYing
resolution
(AppendiX
1)
Identifies
three
areas where legislation on the state level IS the only
practical
means of addreSSing
the problem of the homeless
me n t a I I Y I I I .
1. Mandatory OutDatlent Programs.
Under
eXisting
law,
Involuntary CIVil
co mm I t me n t
procedures essentially permit Institutionalization or release.
Institutionalization
In county or state mental hospitals 15
~ot always an appropriate or necessary option In dealing With
a mentally disordered IndiVidual.
Alternatively, there are
gravely disabled persons who are unWilling or Incapable of
utiliZing voluntary assistance or treatment and therefore are
In need of some form of superVISion and treatment.
Presently,
there are 20 states which have adopted
mandatory outpatIent programs and faCIlIties as a creative and
practical
alternative for dealing With IndiViduals who refuse
to
follow prescribed
treatment
plans and
take prescribed
medicatIons.
4
2. Mandatory Pre-DIscharge Placement DeterminatIons.
Many Individuals are released from county and 5tate
mental health faCIlItIes WIthout any determinatIon being made
of l.vhe t he r they can survI....'B Independently outSIde an
Institution WIthout some care and superVISion. A placement
determination should be made In additIon to determining
whether a person IS no longer commItable. Mandatory
outpatient treatment facIllt les could be utilized as an
InterIm placement optIon
Independent lIVing.
until
the
person
IS
capable of
3 .
CommItment
Procedures
for
"Gravelv
Disabled"
IndiViduals.
LegIslative
action
IS needed to prOVIde tIghter
"gravely dIsabled." Courts ha"Je
standards
for
tt,e
term
5truggled for many years to develop practical gUIdelInes for
determIning when a person as a result of a mental disorder IS
unable
to
prOVide
for- their baSIC
per-sonal needs for food,
clothIng,
employed
homeless
or-
shelter.
However, varYing
standards are being
In actual practice, resulting In "gravely disabled"
IndiViduals finding refuge on the street rather than
appropriate mental health InstItutions.
The essentIal elements which legislation In these three
ar-eas should address are set forth In the resolution.
?
~
II. ANALYSIS OF THE FAILURE OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES TO COMPLY WITH THE LANTERMAN-PETRIS- SHORT
ACT.
A. Issue.
Some
part
of
the general
homeless populat1on
15
comprlsed of the chron1cally mentally 111.1/ The fact that a
person
15 homeless and mentally d1sordered does not s1gnlfy
that
they
are subJect
to
1nvoluntary comm1tment
under
CalIfornIa's Lanterman-PetrIs-Short
Act
("LPS Act").
t1any
stand
1n need of treatment, wh1ch 1S not be1ng prov1ded by
eX1stlng commun1ty mental health programs.
They are, however,
able to prov1de for the1r bas1c personal needs.
The focal p01nt of th1s memorandum 15 on the subgroup of
the mentally dIsordered who are unable
to meet theIr baSIC
needs
for
food,
cloth1ng,
or shelter due
to thelr mental
lllness
Even
1n
those
1nstances
where
aSs1stance
15
ava11able
from fam1ly or
fr1ends, these homeless lndIvIduals
are by the very nature of
thelr mental
d1sorder either
unw111lng or unable
to voluntarlly accept
aSSistance or
t rea t me r, t .
IndiViduals who "as a result
of a mental disorder, are
unable
to prOVIde
for their baSiC personal needs for fOOd,
clothing, or- shelterll are determIned to be lIgravely d1sabled."
We 1 f .
8.
Inst.
Code Sect10n S008(h)(1).
A gravely dlsabled
1/ A Task Force Repor-t of the Amer-lcan Psych1atrlc
Assoc1atlon, The Homeless Mentally Ill, WashIngton, D.C.
(1984); The Homelessness Problem, SClentlflc AmerIcan, Vol.
21::'1, No. I, p. 40 (July, 1984).
6
"T
person may for theIr own protectIon be InvoluntarIly commItted
for emergency and long term care.
The CIty Attorney belIeves that the Los Angeles County
Department of Mental Health has adopted and applIed a
InconSIstent
deCISions.
wIth
that
reqUired
by statute
15 clearly
and court
restrIctive
defInItIon of "gravely dI5abled" which
dIsordered
homeless
IndIVIduals
measure} chronIcally mentally
are denIed admISSIon and
As a
cost saVIng
treatment at county and state mental health faCIlItIes and are
left to roam the streets and alleY5 of Santa MonIca and other
CItIes}
related
unable to prOVIde
to shelter, food,
for theIr baSIC personal needs
clothIng, medIcal,and dental
serVIces.
Due to the County's contInued faIlure to comply WIth a
mandatory statutory duty to admIt and treat IndIVIduals who
clearly meet the statutory defInItIon of "gravely disabled" In
approprIate mental health faCIlItIes} the CIty of Santa MonIca
and numerous
conSIderable
publIC and prIvate agenCIes
resources In a frustratIng}
have expended
wa s t e f u 1 , and
Inadequate
attempt
to deal WIth what 15 essentIally a faIlure
State to prOVIde acceSSIble psychIatrIC
of
the
County and
Interyentlon and treatment faCIlItIes.
In addItIon, even assuming the county complIes WIth Its
mandatory
duty
to
adm It
and
treat
"gravely disabled"
IndIVIduals, thiS WIll not In Itself be a panacea for redUCIng
ReleaSIng
gravely
problem
disabled
of
menta lly III home lessness.
other mentally disordered
the underlYlng
or
7
t
IndIVIduals
back onto the streets wIthout adequate placement,
superVISIon,
and
treatment
WIll
predIctably begIn
a cycle
leadIng
once
agaIn to homelessness,
WIth attendant onset or
exacerbatIon of mental Illness.
B. General LPS Act Involuntary AdmISSIon and
Treatment CrIterIa.
The
Inlt lEd
confInement
and evaluatIon
o f a me n tally
dIsordered person 15 generally accomplIshed pursuant to the
prOVISIons of Welfare & InstItutIons Code SectIon ~150. Under
the LPS
Ac t ,
Involuntary detentIon
or
commItment may be
result of a mental
ordered
only
where
an
IndIVIdual
as a
dIsorder 15 a danger
gravely dIsabled. The
to others, to
hImself or herself, or
prOVISIons of the
LPS Act careFully
dIstIngUIsh
dangerous
dIsabled."
"between
persons
who
are
SUICIdal, ImmInently
to
others,
and
persons
I;.!ho
are
gravely
Estate of Chambers, 71 Cal. App. 3d 277, 284, 139
Ca I. Rp t r .
3? 7, 362 (1977).
In order to fu lly comprehend the lega 1 Issues Invo lved,
a brIef overVIew of the CIVIl commItment process as It relates
to gravely dIsabled IndIVIduals 15 necessary.
C. Emergency Short-Term AdmISSIon and ConfInement
of IIGravel~J DIsabled" Persons.
InitIal cU5tody, conflnement, and evaluatIon of a person
who 15 allegedly "gravely dIsabled" may be made for a perIod
of 72 hours upon applIcatIon of a peace officer or other
8
"
deSIgnated mental health professlonals.
In a faCIlIty desIgnated by the county
State Department of Mental Health.
SectIons 5150 and ?1?1.
ConfInement must be
and approved by the
Welf. & Inst. Code
ThIS
threshold
evaluatIon by deslgnated mental health
crItIcal stage. DependIng on the
profesSlonals IS
a
assessment
and
evaluatIon
methods
beIng
utIlIzed,
an
IndiVldual may be released after the flrst screening lntervlew
as not being gravely dIsabled. In short, initIal custody does
not always result in conClnement In a mental health facil1ty,
even for a 72 hour period. At thIS stage, there is no
Judlclal or adminIstrative reVIew to determlne whether the
lndlvidual
InItlally taken lnto custody is In fact gravely
Thus, county mental health profeSSionals (In some
disabled.
Instances admlsslons are determined by a psychlatrlc nurse)
vested wlth the power and authorIty to admIt or deny admissIon
to an individual alleged to be gravely dlsabled, may exerCise
such authorIty unfettered by meaningful reVIew.
UntIl the present tlme, advocacy on behalf of patIents
as well as JudICIal and adminlstratIve reVIew has been
JustIfIably
commItment
focused
on
the questIon
of whether Involuntary
was
lnItlally proper
and
whether
1 t
should
contInue.
However,
the
questIon arI5e5 as
to whether In a
perIod of
espeCIally
prolonged constraInts
upon governmental
In
the
mental
health
area, there IS
spendIng,
In fact a
strong
dlSlncentlve
on
the
part
of
the
County
to admIt
9
~
IndIVIduals even though they clearly meet applIcable admIssIon
crIterIa, and desperately need mental health serVIces.
If, as a result of an evaluatIon conducted durIng the
InItIal 72 hour confInement, an IndIvIdual 15 determIned to be
gravely dIsabled,
they may be confIned
for an addItIonal 14
day
perIod.
However,
un lIke
the
InItIal
admISSIon
determInatIon,
the
14 day confInement
IS condItIoned upon a
formal
certIfIcatIon
of
necessity by a
psychologI5t
or
phYSICIan
treatment
voluntarIl,;!.
coupled wIth a fInding
unable or unwIllIng to
& Inst. Code SectIons
that
the
and by another professIonal
gravely dIsabled person 15
accept
Welf.
5200-5252.
DurIng the 14 day confInement phase, gravely dIsabled
IndIVIduals may InItIate or have InItIated on theIr behalf
JudICIal reVIew by habeas corpus.
Welf. & lnst. Code SectIons
'52'54-5254.1.
I f
no
JudICIal
rev I ew
15
sought,
an
admInIstratIve
hearIng denomInated as a "certifIcatIon review
hearIng"
must
be
held
WithIn
whether
seven
days
of
the lrl1tIal
detentIon
to
determIne
there 15
probable cause to
contInue
Involuntary commItment.
Welf. & lnst. Code SectIons
5254-5257.
10
D. Lona Term Commitment of Gravely Disabled
Persons.
In the event
the condition of a gravely disabled person
and treatment beyond 17 days the superior
warrants confinement
court
may authorize a temporary conservatorship for a maximum
period of
30 days.
Welf. & Inst.
Code Sections 5350.1 and
5352.1. The superior court may authorize the 30 day temporary
conservatorship based upon either an affidaVit of deSignated
mental
speCIal
health profeSSionals or a comprehenSive
conservatorship
Investigator.
Welf.
&
report by a
Inst. Code
Sections
'7352
and 5352.1. Temporary conservatorshlps
expire Within 30 days unless the superior court
automatically
conducts a hearing to determine whether the proposed
conservatee IS Hgravely dlsabled.ll Welf. &0 Inst. Code Section
5352.1.
If a long term conservatorship (beyond 30 days but less
than a year) IS deemed necessary a court or Jury tria I on the
Issue of lIgrave disability" IS reqUired. Welf. &. Inst. Code
Section 5350Cd). Extended conservatorshlps are viewed as a
last
resort
In
that
their establishment
15 expressly
conditioned upon a
determination
that
there are no other
SUitable
5354.
treatment alternatives.
Welf.
& Inst. Code Section
If potential
conservatees elect
t 0 have a
Jury
determIne whether they are "gravely dIsabled" the tlndlng must
be unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conservatorship
of Roulet, 23 Cal. 3d 219, 225-226, 590 P.2d 1, 152 Cal. Rptr.
11
42'3
0979 ).
Once a Jury or court determInes an indiVidual IS
"gravely dlsabled"
[Tlhe court IS authorlzed to appOInt a
conservator and to determine the scope
of hIS powers (Sectlons ~350) 5357)
and must hold a hearing to determIne
the
approprIate
placement
of
the
The
conservatee.
(Sectlon ?3?8.)
conservatee has the rlght to the least
restrictive placement sUltable for hIS
Circumstances.
as deslgnated by the
court.
([bid.)
A conservatorshlp 50
establlshed automatIcally termInates
one year after It IS created and can
be reestablished only by commenCIng
new conservatorship proceedings In the
superIor
cou r t .
(Section
?361. )
Estate of Early, 35 Cal. 3d 244, 248,
673 P.2d 209, 211, 197 eal. Rptr. 539,
541 (1983).
E. "Gravely Dlsabled" as Defined in Welfare &
InstItutIons Code Section 5008(H)(1) is Not
Unconstitutionally vague and Overbroad.
Since the LPS Act became operative in July of 1969, the
term "gravely disabled" as deflned In Section 5008 has been
subject
to conSiderable attention due
to allegations that it
12
IS
Inherently ambIguouS. See Estate of ;Early, 35 Cal. 3d 244,
P.2d 209, 197 Cal. Rptr. 539 (983); Doe v. Galllnot, 057
1017 (9th Cu'. 1981); Burford, The "Cuckoo's Nest"
673
F.2d
Reassessed:
Involuntary CommItments
In CalIfornIa After
Suzuki
v.
Yuan and Doe v.
Ga III no t ,
22 Santa Clara L. Rev.
807 (1982). However, federal and state courts have upheld the
SectIon 5008 defInition of f1gravely dlsabledfl agaInst
challenges that It IS unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
Doe v. Galllnot, 657 F.2d 1017 (9th elr. 1981); Estate of
Chambers, 71 Cal. App. 3d 277, 139 Cal. Rptr. 357 (1977).
In affiXing a workIng deflnlt lanaI standard of "grave 1).-'
dIsabled" the court In Chambers stated:
The
term
15 suffICIently
precise
to
exclude
unusual
or
nonconformist lifestyles.
It connotes
an Inability or refusal on the part of
the proposed conservatee
to care for
baSIC personal needs of food, clothing
and shelter. Estate of Chambers} 71
Cal. App. 3d 277, 284, 139 Cal. Rptr.
357, 362 (1977).
Wh I 1 e
the
term "gravely dIsabled"
IS not suffICiently
ambIguous
to necessItate or
require ItS
Inva lIdat Ion In a
constItutIonal
sense, the Inherent
diffIculty of applYIng It
as
a
standard
for
Involuntary commItment
has
reqUIred
conSIderable aSSIstance from the courts In InterpretatIon.
13
Recent lItIgatIon InvolvIng ambIguItIes related to whom
and under what CIrcumstances a person WIll be deemed to be
"gravely dIsabled" has focused on the suffICIency of eVIdence
requ1red for InItIal comm1tment, extended treatment by way of
ImposItIon of short term and long term conservatorsh1ps, and
procedural
due
process
protectIons
to
be
afforded
to
Ind1V1duals 5ubJected to Involuntary CIVIl commItment.
F. Due Process ReqUIreS a ConSIstent ADPlIcat10n of
The Statutorv DefInItIon of "Gravely DIsabled"
at All Stages of the LPS ProQess.
The
characterIzatIon of a
person as IIgravely dIsabledll
15
not,
and
should
not,
vary WIth
the
stage
when
the
determInatIon
15 made, or whether a law enforcement offIcIal,
mental
health
personnel,
court,
or
Jury
15
makIng
the
determInatIon.
In other words, a conSIstent applIcatIon of of
the 5 tat u tor y de fIn I t Ion 0 f "g rave I y d us a b 1 e d " I 5 r e qUI red a t
each
stage
or
step
from
InItIal
custody,
evaluatIon,
admISSIon, confInement, to ImpOSItIon of eIther a temporary or
long term conservatorshIp.
There
15 no reported court deCISIon In CalIfornIa whIch
permIts
app lIed
a
fleXIble
defInItIon
of "gravely dIsabled" to be
In order to eIther
restrIct admISSIons or to release
patlent~ prematurely as a cost savlng measure.
Under the LPg Act, lIwho" ma..... make a determInatIon of
whether a person 15 gravely dIsabled lS dependent on the stage
at
whIch the evaluatIon occurs.
However, at every stage from
14
admISSIon
to
Imposltlon
of
a conservatorshIp,
the LPS Act
reqUIres
a
consistent
applIcatIon
of
the
defInItIon
of
"gravely dIsabled" as "[a] condItIon In
WhIch a person, as a
result
baSIC
of
a
mental
dIsorder, 15 unable
to prOVIde for hIS
personal
needs for food,
clothIng or shelter
"
Welf. 8. Inst. Code Section 5008(h)(U.
G.
"Gravely DIsabled"
DIsordered Homeless
JudICIal Interpret~tlon of
Encompasses Many Mentally
IndIVIduals.
The defInItIon of the phrase "gravely dIsabled" Involves
a
conslderatlon
of
whether
the
person
can
prOVIde food,
shelter or clothIng WIth or WIthout
and responSIble famIly members,
partIes.
the aSSIstance of WIllIng
frIends,
or
other
thlr-d
The
most
troublesome
Issue
for
mental
hea 1 t h
profeSSIonals, admInIstratIve hearIng offIcers, and the courts
Involves the suffICIency of eVIdence necessary to determIne
whether a person 15 presently "gravely dIsabled." In the case
of
Estate
of
Early, 35 eaL 3d 244,
673 P.2d 209, 197 Cal.
Rptr.
of the
?39 (1983), the CalIfornIa
Supreme Court resolved many
ambIgUItIes
r e 1 ate d to .....Jh a t
factual and eVIdentIary
conSIderatIons
are
necessary
to
determIne
whether
an
IndIVidual 15 gravely dIsabled.
In the summer of 1981, Mr. Early reSIded In hIS SIster's
backyard. The Court descrIbed hIS general behaVIor and the
response of local mental health offICIals as follows:
15
He
frequently wandered
about
town
In
a dirty,
disheveled and
odoriferous condition.
He was seen b)-I
the coordinator of
the county mental
health department
In an effort
to
arrange
for shelter and by the staff
of
SIskiYou
General
Hospital
for
treatment
of Infections caused by hiS
dirty and urine-soaked clothing. On
September 1~, 1981, appellant Was
admitted to the hospital and a
conservatorship
referral
was made.
The
psychiatrists
who
examined
[appellant] soncurred In a diagnOSIs
of schizophrenia and [concluded] that
hiS Incontinence was due to hiS mental
condition.
[appellant]
There was agreement that
was not capable of caring
for hiS medical
or mental problems
himself, particularly as he refused
voluntary treatment With psychotropIc
medication. Estate of Early, 3~ Cal.
3d 244, 249, 673 P.2d 209, 211, 197
CO'll. Rptr. 539,1541 (1983),
A Jury found Mr. Early "gravely du:.abledll and an order
was entered establishing a conservatorship. AppOinted counsel
for Mr. Early appealed. The Issue on appeal which the Court
16
focused on related to the trIal court's denIal of proposed
Jury InstructIons by appellant's counsel as to whether
"appellant could meet hIs needs for food, clothIng and shelter
WIt h the ass 1St an ceo f fa mIl y and f r I end;5" and two J u r y
Inst ruct lone lid 1 rect Ing the Jury to fInd [appe llant] was not
gravely dIsabled
If
he was able to prOVIde
for hIS baSIC
personal needs WIth the aSSIstance of WIllIng and responsIble
famIly or frIends."
The
reason
the
court
focused
on thIS
Issue was the
eXIstIng Spilt
among
the Courts of
Appea 1 as
to whether
aSSIstance avaIlable from famIly and frIends In the form of
food, clothIng and shelter must be conSIdered In determInIng
whether a person IS "gravely dIsabled." l;ompare
Conservatorshlp of Buchanan,
78 Ca I. Ap P .
3d 281, 144 Cal.
Rptr.
241
(1978);
tholdlng whether
IndIVIdual
hI mse I for
herself IS able to prOVIde for baSIC needs WIthout conSIderIng
thIrd party aSSIstance), WIth ConservatorshID of D~VIS, 124
Ca 1.
App.
3d
313, 177
of WIlson,
ea I. Rp t r .
137 Ca 1. App.
369
(1981), and
ConservatorshIp
3d
132, 186 Ca I .
Rp t r . 748 (1982) (b 0 t h h old 1 n 9 1 tIS err 0 r ton 0 tal low a J u r y
to conSIder the avaIlabIlIty of aSSIstance from responSIble
famIly, frIends and others In determInIng whether an
IndIVIdual IS truly unable to care for themselves and thus
gravely dIsabled).
The Court ln Early ~dopted the OavIs and WIlson test
whIch reqUIres that:
17
the defInltlon of the phras.e "gravely
dIs.abled"
as. a condItlon In whlch the
person 15 "unable to provlde for hls
baSIC personal needs for food,
clothlng, or shelter
5008, subd. (h)(l)) was
"
(SectIon
Intended to
encompass a consIderatIon of whether
the person could provIde these baSIC
needs wIth or wlthout the aSsIstance
of
wIllIng and
responsIble
membe rs. .
f r ll:lnds ,
or other
f am I 1 Y
thIrd
partIes.. Estate of Early, 35 Cal. 3d
244, 254, 673 P.2d 209,215, 197 Cal.
Rptr. 539, 54? (983),
As a
result
of the trIal courts
fa Ilure to a llow the
requested
Jury
lnstructlons on avallablllty of thIrd party
asslstar.ce}
the court reversed and
remanded for a retrIal of
the " g I' a ve d 1 50 a b I lIt y" I 50 50 U e .
Wh 1 1 e
the Court dId not reach
the Issue of whether In
Its Vlew Mr.
Ea I' l~,... 'Alae.
In
fact
"gravely dIsabled!"
It
to
concluded
Its
deCISIon
WIth a cautIonary response
appellant's contentIon that he was not gravely dIsabled If he
voluntarlly accepted treatment. The court observed that
"[alppellant consls.tently refus.ed treatment for hIS mental
dIsorder. That he allowed hospItal staff to bathe hIm and
treat
hls wounds. does not
mean he voluntarIly accepted
t I' eat me n tIn the 5 ens e I n ten de d . JI
Es.tate of Earl~, 35 Cal. 3d
18
244, 2'5'5-256 .
(1983).
673 P.2d 21)9}
216} 197 Cal.
Rptr. 539, '546
H. Many "Grave ly OIsab led" Home les5 ~nd IVIdua 15
As A Result of theIr Mental DIsorder Are Unwll1Ino
or Unable to Accept ASSIstance Even When It
15 Available.
A
realIstIC determInatIon of
whether
a person
15
"gravely
dIsabled"
Involves more
than an assessment
of
avaIlabIlIty of shelter, food, and clothIng.
In essence, It
15 a two part test.
FIrst, 15 the person capable of SurVIVIng
on theIr own or WIth the help of WIllIng and responSIble thIrd
partIes) "Such thIrd partIes Include relatIves, frIends,
communIty agenCIes, and board and care faCIlItIes."
Estate of
DaVIS, 124 Cal. App. 3d 313,320,177 Cal. Rptr. 369,373
(1981). Second} assumIng avaIlabIlIty of thIrd party
aSSIstance for baSIC needs, 15 the person by the nature of
theIr mental dIsorder unWIllIng or Incapable of utIlIZIng the
avaIlable aSSIstance) AvaIlabIlIty 15 meanIngless If
utIlIzatIon IS foreclosed by mental dIsease.
A crItIcal
factor
In all LPS Act "grave ly d Is-ab led"
determInatIons 15 the questIon of whether the person IS unable
or unWIllIng
to accept
treatment
voluntarIly.
Estate of
DaVIS} 124 Cal. App. 3d 313, 327, 177 Cal. Rptr. 369, 377
(1981). In Estate of Chambers, 71 Cal. App. 3d 277, 139 Cal.
Rptr. 3?7 (1977), the appellate court affIrmed the trIal
court's order appOIntIng a co~servator
for Mr. Chambers who
19
was unable to
also demonstrated
and superViSIon.
In Mitchell v. Count~.... of Los Angeles. 114 Cal. App.3d
170 Cal. Rptr. 779 (1981), Mr. Mltchell was unable to
provIde for hIS basIc personal needs and had
an InabilIty to voluntarily accept treatment
606,
provIde hImself wIth
food,
clothIng or shelter and was
unwIllIng or unable to take prescrIbed medicatIon voluntarIly.
The order appoIntlng a publIc guardIan was upheld.
The focal pOInt of the inquIry In assessIng whether a
nondangerou5 person is gravely dIsabled 15 whether the person
15 capable of
surVIVIng safely In
freedom.
CapabIlIty IS
IntImately
Ilnl<ed
to voluntarlness.
A determInatIon of t~e
ex 1 S ten ceo f " 9 rave d I sa b I lIt y" 1 S to bed e t e r m I n e d not I n a
vacuum,
"but In the context
of SUItable alternatIves, upon a
conSIderatIon
of
the WIllingness and capabIlity of
the
proposed conservatee to voluntarIly accept treatment
"
Estate of DaVIS,
124 Cal. App. 3d 313, 325, 177 Cal. Rptr.
369, 376 (1981) .
IndIViduals, who as a result of a mental dIsorder are
Incapable of or un~Jlllln9 to accept or prOVide for baSIC and
crItIcal needs of shelter, food, and clothIng reqUIre the
InterventIon of the state SInce they are not capable of
ensurIng
their own surVIval or safety,
even WIth the help of
famIly or
friends.
"States are vested WIth
the hIstorIC
parens patrIae power, IncludIng the duty to protect persons
under legal dl5abIlItles to act for themsel<....es." O'Connor v.
Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563) 583 (1975); see also Mormon Church v.
20
UnIted StC',l~es, 136 U.S. 1,56-58 (890); HawaII v. Standard
011, 405 U.s. 251, 257 (1972).
Many chronically and seriously mentally disordered
IndiViduals who are gravely disabled cannot acknowledge their
Illness and refuse to cooperate wIth private or publiC
agencies, friends, or families who attempt to give aid or
treatment. Katz, The RIght to Treatment - An ~nchantln9 Le9al
FictIon?, 36 U. Chl. L. Rev. 75'5, 768-769 (1969); LeVine,
Homelessness: Its ImplIcatIons for Mental Health Policv and
Practice, PsychosoCial RehabilItation Journal, Vol. VIII, No.
1,
P.
12
(July, 1984); A Task
ASSOCIation, The
Force Report of the American
PsychiatriC
Washington,
Homeless
Menta lly
I 11 ,
they
D.C.
(1984).
Because of
their condition,
"are
unable to function In society and will suffer real harm
to
themselves unless prOVided With
care
In a sheltered
envI ronmen t . " 0 I Conno r v. Oona 1 dson, 422 U. S. 563, 584
(1975); see e.g., Lake v. Cameron, 364 F. 2d 657, 663-64
(D.C. Cir. 19b6)(dlssenting opinion).
I. Los Angeles County Has A Mandatory Duty to Admit,
Treat, and Make Appropriate Placements for Indigent
Persons Statutorily Defined as "Gravely Dusabled.lI
It has become standard practice for mental health
profeSSionals staffIng county mental
hea 1 t h
faCIlities to
regularly refuse admiSSion
to
indIViduals who are clearly
"gravely disabled" as that term is defined In the LPS Act and
21
Interpreted
17008, subd.
The
by numerous courts.
(h)(l).
WeIf.
& Inst. Code Section
County utilizes two policies
or procedures to deny
admISSion
to "gravely dIsabled" 1ndIvIduals.
Under the fIrst
procedure
the county acknowledges that
an IndIvIdual taken
Into custody by a
peace offIcer pursuant to Welfare and
Institut10ns Code SectIon 15150 IS "gravely dIsabled," or a
on
of
County
beds.
denies
danger
to se~f
or
others.
Howeve r ,
the
admlSSIon
based
an asserted shortage
(See
AppendIX II.) The second POlICY relates to SItuatIons where
there are beds ava1lable but there 1S a fa1lure of mental
health profess1onals employed by the County to adhere to the
statutory def1n1t1on
of
"gravely dIsabled"
In determln1ng
whether an Indlv1dual shall be
hour evaluat10n and treatment.
1nvoluntarlly admItted for 72
The
underlYIng reaSOn for both
be1ng ut1llzed by the County
and hospital resources.
admISSIons poliCIes
1S an alleged lack of
currently
fund1ng
Howeve r ,
for
reasons
dIscussed
here1nafter, the County has
a mandatory legal duty
to admIt,
evaluate, and treat Ind1gent
persons who meet the
stotutory def1nlt1on of "gravely d1sabled."
In th1s regard,
or excuse
lnablllty are 1nadequate legal
for faIlure to comply WIth such a
pleas of
Just I f 1eat Ion
duty.
f1nanCIal
22
J. Under the LPS Act DesIgnated Mental Health
OffICIals Have the ExclUSIve Authorlty to
lnvolutarlly CommIt a Person for Emergency
72 Hour EvaluatIon and Treatment.
Pursuant
to Welfare and Instltutlons Code Section ?l?O,
law enforcement
officers may upon probable
cause take Into
custody a person they deem to be a danger to self or others or
transported
e'v'aluat Ion.
to a
The lndlvldual
deSignated mental
In custody may then be
health faCIlity For
"gravely dlsabled.1I
As a matter of law,
peace offlcero do "not ha",;e
the authority to make the
f1nal determ1natlon of d1agnosIng
that a person 15. or 1S not, aff llcted WI th menta I 11lness. It
Johnson v. County of Los Angeles, 143 Cal. App. 3d 298, 316,
191 Cal. Rptr. 704, 717 (1983). Upon arrival at a des1gnated
mental health faCIlIty the deCISIon to evaluate and to admIt
(confine)
or
rele-3se
1S excluslvely and properly made by a
phYS1C1an or other mental health profeSSIonal stafFIng the
faCIlIty.
Th us,
the majOrIty of
IndlV1duals vested or
empowered to make the deCiSion to admIt are all employees of
the County and subject to the dlrect10n snd control of the
County WIth respect to admISSIon polICIes and practIces.
23
K. County Mental Health ProfessIonals Have No
DIscretIon to Refuse AdmIssIon to "Gravelv
DIsable" Persons.
An
Ind 1'-ildua 1
who as a result
of a mental dIsorder IS
"gravely dIsabled"
15
entItled
to
prompt
evaluatIon
end
treatmelit
under
the
LPS Act.
The
LegIslature has clearly
expressed an Intent to:
prOVIde
treatment
prompt evaluatIon and
of persons WIth serIOUs
mental
dIsorders
[T]o
protect
mentally dIsordered person5
from
crImInal
acts.
Welf.
&
I n 5 t. Co d e
SectIon SOOllaJ & (g).
WI th
respect
to
receIpt
of
serVIces
" [m]entally
dI50rdered person5 shall receIve serVIces" pursuant to the LP5
Act.
Welf. & Inst. Code SectIon ?002 (emphaSIS added).
SectIon IS of the Welfare and InstItutIons Code prOVIdes
that
"(s]hall
15
mandatory and 'may'
IS' per m I S S I ve' WIt h
respect to InterpretIng and applYIng prOVISIons of the Code."
In makIng InItIal evaluatIons of persons alleged to be
"gravely dIsabled" County menta! health profeSSIonals must
apply the statutory defInItIon as Interpreted by the courts.
The LegIslature by speCIfIcally defInIng "gravely dIsabled" In
Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIon S008(h)(1) has
manlfested
d1scretIon
a legIslatIve Intent to lImIt
of mental health profeSSIonals
or
gUIde the
evaluatIng
In
persons
alleged
to
be
gravely dIsabled.
In contrast, the
24
Leglslature has not specifically deflned the terms tldanger to
s elf 0 rot her 5 Jilt her e for e Ma n 1 f est 1 n g a n In ten t t 0 a I low
broad dlscret10n by mental health profess1onals In evaluat1ng
and determ1nlng wh1ch persons should be 1nvoluntar1ly confined
for "dangerousness."
Further
support for the argument that the County cannot
I1m1t
admiSSions of "gravely disabled" 1ndlgents can be found
by compar1ng
procedures
W 1 t h
the
the
Section ?150 1nvoluntary comm1tment
lnvoluntary custody, evaluatlon, and
treatment
prov1s1ons
for persons who
due to Inebr1atlon are
determined to be gravely disabled or a danger to themselves or
others.
Welf. & Inst. Code Sectlons 7170-5176.
Wlth
respect
to
persons
"gravely d1sabled"
due
to
prOVIded
that
alcoholism, the
establishment
Legislature has
of detoxlflcatla~
InebrIation
speclflcally
and chronlc
facll1tles
15
optlonal wlth
each
county.
d1sabled
The
custody and
conflnement
optlons
for
gravely
effect
lnebrlates under
Sectlon
5170
only
have
In those
countIes where the
Soard of Supervlsors by
facllltles. Welf. & Inst.
resolutlon has
establlshed
such
Code Sectlon 5176.
The
Leglslature
has
expressly granted
the
County
author 1 t>,
to deSignate whlch faclIlty or facllltles are to be
utlllzed for 72 hour lnvoluntary evaluatlDn and detoxlflcatlon
as well as the maXlmum number of patIents to be served by the
faclllty at anyone tlme.
We 1 f.
& Inst.
Code Sectlon 5176.
There
15 no reqUirement that
the County establlsh a faC111ty
to
accomodate
a I I
gravely dIsabled lnebrlates
and chronlc
2~
alcohollcs present In the County.
Johnson v. Munlcloal Court,
70 Cal. App. 3d 761,764, 139 Cal. Rptr. 1.,2, 1':54 (1977), The
court held that delegating the determlnatlon of maxImum
capacIty
llmltatlons to respective countles would Insure that
operat Ion of the faclllt les wou Id not be "beyond the funding
capablllty of
the
county or state."
Johnson v. MunlCloal
Court,
70
Cal.
App.
3d 761, 764,
139 Ca l. Rp t r .
1':52, 1154
County
(1977),
However,
WI th
respect
to Section 51':50
deslgnated
facllltle<s
there
are
no Similar statutory
prOVISIons which permit the County to establish or determine
maXLmum capacLty
allocations.
The Legislature has made a careful dlstlnctlon between
limitations on
the baSIS
of budgetary
"grave dlsablllty" resulting from chroniC alcoholism In which
the county
has the
services and
"grave
opt Ion of
disability"
establishing and determining
attributable to a mental
disorder where the county IS mandated to prOVide treatment.
"Mentally disordered persons shall receive services pursuant
to
thiS part.
Persons
ImpaIred by chronIC alcoholism may
receive services pursuant to thiS part
"
We If. & [n 5 t .
Code Section ':5002 (emphaSIS added).
Further support for Imposing a mandatory duty upon the
County to prOVide for "gravely disabled" homeless IndiViduals
may be found In Welfare and InstItutIons Code Section 17000.
Many "gravely disabled" homeless persons are both mentally III
and
lndlgent.
Welfare and Instltutlons Code Section 17000
reqUires
all
counties
H"J
the state
to prOVIde medIcal
26
assIstance
to
IndIgent
persons.
County of San DIego v.
VIlorIa,
Chane\)
(1962);
276
ea 1.
App. 2d 350,80 Cal. Rptr. 869 (1969);
209 Cal. App. 2d 101, 25 Cal. Rptr. 603
County v. FrIsbIe, 19 Cal. 2d 634. 122
615 Ops. Cal. f.1tt'y Gen. 11 (1982). The
v. Sp r-ague ,
Los Angeles
P.2d
506
(1942),
courts have made no dIstInctIon between mental health serVIces
and other
types of medIcal care
In asseSSIng the mandatory
duty
A
Imposed by Welfare and
InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000.
SIgnIfIcant
number of
"gravely dIsabled"
persons are
IndIgent
and homeless by the very nature of theIr mental
condItIon, and, therefore, fall WIthIn the purVIew of Welfare
and InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000 whIch prOVIdes:
Every county and every CIty and county
sha 11
relIeve
and support all
IndIgent persons,
Incompetent.
and those
poor,
IncapaCItated
by age,
lawfu lly
dIsease,
or aCCIdent,
reSIdent
thereIn,
when such persons
are not
supported and
re Ileved
by
theIr
relatIves or
frIends, by theIr
own means,
or by state hospItals or
state or prIvate InstItutIons.
As
dIscussed
preVIously,
Coun t).,
mental
hes I t h
profeSSIonals are legally oblIgated to apply the statutory
defInItIon of lIgravely dIsabled" and If In applYIng thIS
defInItIon a person IS deemed to be gravely disabled as well
as Indigent, Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIons 17000 and
27
5150 are both applIcable and requIre that the IndIvIdual be
admItted. The mandatory duty Imposed upon countIes by SectIon
17000 may not be evaded by pleas of fInancIal constraInts.
" I tIS C 1 ear t hat 5 e C t Ion 170 0 0 I mp os e d up 0 nth e . co un t y
. a mandatory duty to relIeve and support Its IndIgents,
and the excuse that It cannot afford to do so 15 unavaIlIng."
Boehm v County of Merced, ____ Cal. App. 3d (1985), CIty
and County of San FrancIsco v. SUDerlor Court, 57 Cal. App.
3d 44, 47, 128 Cal. Rptr. 712, 714 \1976).
The mandatory duty of a county to provIde assIstance and
care may be triggered by Indlgency alone.
We 1 f. &. In 5 t .
Code
SectIon
17000.
Where Indlgency and homelessness are not only
coupled WIth,
the duty of
but are the dIrect
result of, mental Illness,
the count).' to
Intervene
IS compellIng and
unquestIonable. In thI5 SItuatIon, the burden on taxpayers
should be consIdered, but the courts have consIstently held
that
"theIr burdens were not
SO grievous as
to permIt
lndlgents, In the mIdst of plenty, to go hungry, cold and
naked, WIthout fault. " CIty & County of San FranCISCO v.
SuperIor Court} 57 Ca I . App. 3d 44, 47} 128 Ca 1. Rptr. 712,
714-117 (976).; SBE! also County of Los Angeles v. Pavne} 8
Cal. 2d ?63} 573, 66 P.2d 6138,663 (1937).; Mooney v. PIckett,
4 Cal. 3d 669, 676 n.7} 483 P.2d 1231, 1235 n.7, 94 Cal. Rptr.
279, 283 n.7 (1971).
To allow the County to
Indigent gravely dIsabled
arbItrarily refuse admISSIon to
IndIViduals WIthout
follOWIng
applIcable statutory and JudICial
gUldellnes and defInItIons
28
15 clearly at odds wIth
procedures and overall
the Involuntary emergency commItment
purposes
of
both
the LPS Act and
Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000.
FundIng for emergency InpatIent mental health servIces
IS a function of admISSIon rates and patIent populatIon. The
use
of
arbitrary and ad hoc admISSIon polICIes
In County
mental
patIent
health
faCIlItIes
permIts
the County
to manIpulate
census
fIgures
So
as
to
JustIfy
reductIons
In
faCIlItIes and servIces to chronIcally mentally III persons.
Wh I I e
PsychIatrIC
Los
Angeles
County U.S.C.
MedIcal
Center's
HospItal has closed four
wards In the last three
years
as a cost savIng
measure, scores of IIgravely dIsabled"
men
and
women
roam
the
streets of Santa
Monica and ather
CItIes,
unable
to prOVIde for theIr
baSIC needs of shelter,
food, and clothIng.
InterventIon by the County on behalf of these sufferIng
IndIVIduals IS mandated by statute, case law, and most
Importantly, by the moral oblIgatIon and commItment of the
state acting on behalf of all Citizens, to protect persons who
due to mental disabilitIes are Incapable of protectIng
themselves.
We
ha')e
no doubt
that when statutes
affectIng the well-being - perhaps the
very surVIval - of CItIzens of thIS
state are belng Violated WIth ImpunIty
by the
County,
an agent of
the
state,
the
courts,
as
fInal
29
Interpreters
of
law,
must
Cl ty
the
Intervene to enforce complIance.
& County of San FranCISCO v. SuperIor
Co u r t , 1:5 7
Ca 1 . Rp t r .
added).
Cal. Hpp. 3d 44, 50, 128
712, 716 (1976)lemphas15
.
30
III. ANALYSIS OF THE FAILURE OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES TO MEET ITS MANDATORY LEGAL DUTY TO
PROVIDE SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS.
A. IS5ue.
It 15 Important to recognIze that needed reforms In the
mental
health system WIll only partIally address the homeless
problem by aSSIstIng that segment
of the homeless populatIon
WIth serIOUS
mental
Illness.
The homeless populatIon also
Includes
unemployed
persons and persons unable
to
fInd
affordable
lOW-Income hOUSIng.
The faIlure of the County of
Los Angeles
to prOVIde
temporary shelter makes
I t
more
dIffIcult
for
these
IndIVIduals
to
reenter
the economIC
maInstream and stabIlIze theIr lIves.
WIthIn the last eIghteen months, polICIes, programs, and
procedures adopted by Los Angeles County to prOVIde temporary
emergency
shelter
to
Indlgents have engendered numerous
laWSUIts.
In each case, the County has eIther settled the
case by agreelng to change Its challenged polICIes or a court
has ordered the County to Implement new procedures to conform
to statutory reqUIrements.
Elsenhelm v. Board of SuperVIsors of the Countv of Los
Angeles,
No.
C 479473
(Supr. Ct. Cal.J
flIed December 20,
1983) ,
eha I I enged
the general
applIcatIon procedures and
Ident If lcat Ion
reqUIrements
utIlIzed
by the County to
determIne elIgIbIlity for temporary emergency shelter.
As a
result
of the laWsuIt. the County has reVIsed Its applIcation
and IdentIfIcatIon polICIes enablIng homeless persons to have
qUIcker access to emergency shelters.
31
In Ross v.
Board of SupervIsors of
the County of Los
Angeles,
No. C ?01603 lSupr. Ct.
Ca I ., f I 1 ad Ju I y 10, 1984),
the County's
practIce of
Issuing checks or
warrants
to
homeless persons
In
the amount
of
$8.00 per night
for
emergency shelter In lieu of actual shelter was challenged as
Inadequate
to secure emergency shelter.
In response to the
laWSUit, the County Increased the warrant amount to $16.00.
Paru~ v.
Board
of Supervisors
of the County of Los
Angeles,
No.
C 1723361
(Supr. Ct. Cal.,
filed November 20,
1984)
challenged the County's practice
of utilIzIng SkId Row
hotels whIch were
In 'v'l 0 I a t Ion 0 f
the County PublIC Health
Code and had been condemned by the CIty Department of BUIlding
and Safety to house the homeless.
One day after the SUit was
fIled,
the County agreed to settle by not IssuIng vouchers to
homeless persons
to
four hotels until
they met applicable
health and safety standards.
The county's general relIef polICIes and procedures have
also been subject to recent Inquiry and resultant crItICIsm by
the Los Angeles County Grand Jury.
(See Append IX r I I. )
A Vital Issue not yet
addressed In any laWSUit agaInst
the County and whIch directly affects both the homeless and
the CIty of Santa Monica Involves the County's faIlure to
adequately prOVIde tempora~y emergency shelter faCilities In
the Westslde a~ea of the County.
Los Angeles County currently
has
a poliCY of contracting WIth hotels
located almost
exclUSively
In
the Skid Row area of
central Los Angeles to
for elIgible homeless
prOVide
temporary emergency shelter
.
32
IndIVIduals.
However,
due to theIr
locatIon and condItIon,
these faCIlItIes pose a substantIal
of physIcal assault, rapes, muggIngs
rIsk
of harm In the form
and dIsease to homeless
men and women sent to them for emergency shelter.
Rather
than
place
themselves
In
a
sItuatIon
whIch
clearly poses
a
substantIal
r usk to
theIr lIves, numerous
homeless
IndIVIduals,
espeCIally SIngle women, the elderly,
mentally III persons, forego SkId Row
and phYSIcally and
hotels
and
Instead
are forced to
see k :5 he 1 t e r 1 n "ve h 1 C 1 e s
(abandoned
and
theIr
own), brIdges
and freeway overpasses,
parkIng structures, alleys, park benches, all nlght maVIe
theatres, dumpsters and trashbIns, and cardboard boxes."
Robertson, Ropers & Boyer, Emergency Shelter for the Homeless
In Los Anaeles County, BasIc Shelter Research ProJect,
U.C.L.A. School of PublIC Health (1984).
As a dIrect result of the County's polICY of prOVIdIng
temporary emergency shelter almost exclUSIvely In SkId Row
hotels,
Influx
the CIty of Santa
MonIca has experIenced a contInual
of homeless IndIVIduals who have no meanIngful shelter
optIons and sleep In CIty parks, beaches, and vehIcles located
In the CIty, thus engenderIng expendItures of publIC resources
In the form of Increased law enforcement actIVIty, as well as
prOVIdIng funds for food and shelter for homeless IndIVIduals.
33
B. Los Angeles County Effectlvely Denles [ndlgent
Homeless Resldents Necessary Emergency Shelter
by Locatlng the MajOrlty of Avallable Rooms In
Skld Row Hotels.
L
OverVlew
of
the
I,..os
Anaeles
Countv
Temporary Emergency Shelter Program.
Los Angeles IS unlque among major cltles In the Unlted
States In that 1t does not prov1de emergency shelter In
publlcly
County
Funded dormltory type faC111tles. Instead,
has opted to provlde emergency shelter as part of
the
Its
General
Re 1 1 e f
("GR" )
program.
Under the
GR program, the
County uses e1ther the "voucher" system or the "check/warrant"
system to provlde
Indlv1duals.
temporary emergency shelter to quallfled
2. The "Voucher" $ystem.
accept
Angeles.
ApprOXimately slxty-nlne Skld Row hotels have agreed to
homeless persons referred to them by the County of Los
These faCllltles have been denomlnated "voucher
hot e 1 s . II
("DPSS")
AIl Coun t y
offlces keep a
Department
of Pub il c
Soclal Servlces
115 t
of these "voucher hotels" whlch
15
utilized
by el1g1b1l1ty workers
In
asslstlng homeless
persons flnd shelter.
A quallfled homeless appllcant selects a hotel from the
app roved 11 st.
The ellglb1llty worker must then telephone the
hotel
and conflrm that a vacancy eXlsts.
If a vacancy eXlsts
a
"hous Ing voucher" 15 1ssued wh 1ch
15 prsented to the hotel
34
by
the appl1cant upon arrlval.
Shelter 1S prov1ded from one
to seven days.
There
eXlsts no contract between
the vendor hotels and
the
County.
The
hotels have agreed to
accept a voucher In
lIeu
of
lmmed1ate
cash
paymen t .
When
the
vouchers
are
subm1tted
to
DPSS by hotel
owners
they
receIve deferred
p.;:syments}
rangIng between e1ght and
SIxteen dollars per day.
There
15
ObVIouslv no f1nancIal IncentIve
..
for the county to
enter
Into voucher agreements WIth
hotels and motels who are
located outslde of the Skld Row area, Slnce thls would Involve
payment
of
rates
at
the
maXImum voucher
cetllng le~)el of
$16.00.
Skid
Row voucher
hotels
generally charge
rates
between
$8.00 and $10.00 and
thus represent slgnlflcant cost
saVIngs for the county.
There
are no vendor
hotel rooms speCIfIcally allocated
for
use by DPSS.
The number
of vendor hotel rooms avaIlable
for
GR applIcants varIes from day
to day.
Vacancy rates In
these hotels are generally hIgher In warm weather and lower In
cold and raIny weather.
A telllng statIstIC 15 that as of December, 1984} there
were
7}200
rooms avaIlable In
voucher hotels, however} only
1,400
were beIng utilIzed.
As WIll be dIscussed hereInafter}
there
15
ample
and JustIfIable reasons
why ?,800 rooms are
vacant
In SkId Row hotels whIle parks, doorways, beaches} and
automobIles
prOVide
shelter
for
thousands
of
homeless
Indn:lduals.
The DIckenSIan condltlons
and locatIon of SkId
35
Row voucher
hotels operate to exclude
those most In need of
protectIve shelter and General RelIef.
3. The "Warrant/Check" System.
In the e....'ent there IS a lack of ....'acancles avaIlable for
GR reCIpIents at voucher hotels} the County WIll lssue an
emergency check or warrant In the amount of $16.00 to elIgIble
lndlgent homeless persons. It IS then the responsIbIlity of
the homeless person to cash their check, and locate a hotel or
motel whIch wlII prOVIde a night's shelter for $16.00 or less.
Howeve r ,
warrants or checks are rarely Issued Slnce vacanCIes
always
eXIst
In
Skld
Row voucher
hotels.
By deSIgn and
ImplementatIon,
vacanCIes In voucher hotels
eXist not due to
lack of need but because of locatlon and condItIons.
C. Quallf1ed Homeless Indlgents are EffectIvely
ForeclQsed from Ut Illzlng AvaIlable "GR" :)oucher
Hotel FaCIlItIes Out of Fear for theIr Personal
S.;:sfety and Well Belng.
By
located
utIlIZIng
voucher
hotels, a majOrIty
County has eIther
of WhICh are
by deSIgn or
1 r, Sk I d
Row, the
neglIgence created and perpetuated an emergency shelter systen,
whIch effectively precludes meanIngful and substantial access
and use by thousands of elIgIble homeless IndIVIduals.
80th by day and nIght the streets and alleys of SkId Row
echo
WIth the sounds of IndIscrImInate VIolence.
The elderly
and mentally disordered are constantly assaulted and robbed of
theIr meager posseSSIons. SIngle women are subJect to
36
constant harra5sment and physlcal abuse.
Rapes are prevalent.
A large number of voucher hotels on the approved DPSS lIst are
located
fringes.
e 1 the r
In the heart of SkId
Row or on Its ImmedIate
The
old
and the young, SIngle women, and the
are sent to these hotels on a dally baSIS.
mentally dIsordered
The exper1enced and Wise among the homeless SImply do
not apply for GR SInce they know where they wlll be sent.
They prefer the unknown dangers of sleepIng In parks,
doorways, and alleys to the known vlolence whlch awaIts them
In many SkId Row voucher hotels. The unInItIated and naIve,
many of whom have recently become homeless, qUIckly learn that
sleepIng outSIde and faCing the elements are preferable to the
constant threat of phySical vlolence
SkId Row voucher hotels.
As a general rule, SkId Row voucher hotels lack securlty
Inherent In OccupYIng
lack
the safety of their guests.
prIvate tOIlet facIlltles
A ma Jar 1 t Y 0 f
personnel to ensure
these
hotels
In each room,
neceSSItatIng
use
of
common tOIlets and
showers located on
each
floor.
A great number of assaults and beatIngs occur to
hotel guests
Slnce there
as
they go to and from these bathroom faCIlItIes.
IS
an acknow 1 edged 1 ack
lIttle safety behInd a
open by IndIVIduals
of
securIty,
many
IndIViduals
fInd
locked door whIch
IS
frequently
kIcked
Intent
on robbery
or
assault. Slnce the maXlmum monthly GR grant IS presently
$228.00 these same hotels serve as short term emergency
shelter
and
also as the only affordable "long term" houslng
for lnd1vlduals on General RelIef.
37
What must be kept in mind IS that GR applIcants from the
entIre terrItorIal area of lo~ Angeles County are referred to
SkId Row voucher hotels. If a homeless person applIes for
emergency shelter In an outlYIng County Department of PubliC
SOCIal Servlces DIstrict OffIce they are o~ly elIgible for a
maXlmum of 7 days shelter. However, If they agree to accept
shelter In a SkId Row voucher hotel, they are automatIcally
el1gIble
for
14
days
of
emergency shelter.
Homeless
Indlvlduals
are essentIally penalIzed by beIng deprlved of 7
days
of shelter If they attempt to secure or utlllze ~helters
outslde
the
Skid Row area.
(See Emergency HOUSIng DeCiSIon
Form,
AppendiX IV.)
A person who
applIes at the DPSS off1ce
In West Los Angeles has only a mInIscule chance of recelvlng
rooms In the three voucher hotels located on the Westslde. On
any gIven day on the Westslde, there are only a maXimum of SIX
rooms
avaIlable 1n hotels/motels whlch
have agreed to accept
County vouchers In lIeu of ImmedIate cash payment.
In thIS SItuatIon, homeless IndIViduals have essentlally
two optlons. First, they are referred to a hotel located In
the
central
C 1 t Y
they
SkId
Row
area.
If
they have
no
transportatIon
transportatIon
are
provlded
Wit h
bus
tokens
for
from Santa
MonIca
to downtown
Los Angeles.
Second, an IndIVidual may reasonably and JustIfiably opt not
to go to SkId Row tor a genUIne fear for theIr personal safety
or
the safety of spouses.
In thIS Instance, the IndiVIduals
may attempt
to
secure
a bed at
private sector shelters If
avaIlable,
or sleep In vehicles, parks, beaches, or any other
38
locatIon
which affords a degree
of safety from physIcal harm
and exposure to the elements.
D. Los Angeles County Has A Mandatory Statutory
Duty to PrOVIde Temporary Shelter WhICh IS not
In V1olatIon of ApplIcable HOUSIng Codes and IS not
Located In an Area Rampant WIth CrIme and VIolence.
Indlgency
reflects
a
condItIon whereby an IndIVIdual
essentIal food, clothIng, hOUSIng
lacks
the means to obtaIn
and
medIcal
care.
WI th respect to
a county's oblIgatIon to
aId and aSSIst Indlgents and other segments of the populatIon
unable to prOVIde for the baSIC essentIals necessary for
surVIval,
prOVIdes:
Welfare
and
Instltutlons
Code
SectIon
17000
Every county and every CIty and
county shall relIeve
and support all
Incompetent,
poor,
IndIgent persons,
and
those
IncapaCItated
dIsease,
reSIdent
or
accldent)
by age,
lawfully
thereIn,
when
such persons
are
not
supported
and
re lleved
by
tr.elr
relatIves or
frIends, by theIr
own
means,
or by state hospItals or
other state or prlvate lnstltutlons.
SectIon
17000 Imposes a mandatory duty upon the County
and
"extends
to every person comlng
WIthin the terms of the
statute
dependent upon publIC
assistance for the neceSSItIes
39
of Ide." Moonev v. PIckett, 4 Cal. 3d 669,677,483 P.2d
1231, 1237, 94 Cel. Rptr. 279, 28? (1971), Emergency shelter
and housing 15 clearly a baslc neceSSIty of lIfe.
SInce
Welfare
and
InstItutIons Code SectIon
17000
relates
to a publIC aSSIstance scheme or program, WhICh IS of
statewIde scope and effect, It
to effect the stated objects of
Code SectIon 11000; see Rosas v.
"sha II be lIbera lly const rued
the program.1I
Welf. &0 Inst,
Mont9omer~, 10 Cal. App. 3d
77, 89, 88 Cal. Rptr. 907, 914 (970),
In fulfIllIng Its mandatory duty under Welfare and
Inst Itut Ions
Code,
See t Ion
17000,
a county has broad
dIscretIon
"to determIne ellglbllty for,
the type and amount
of, and condltlons to be attached to 1ndlgent rellef." County
of Los Angeles v. Department of SOCIal Welfare, 41 Cal. 2d
44?}
have
458, 260 P.2d 41, 43
repeatedly attempted
(19'53).
Many countIes, however,
to
exerCIse complete
I oca I
dIscretIon
In admInIsterIng general aSSlstance programs whlch
are patently
In confllct
wlth the objects and purposes of
Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000.
ThIS dIscretIon, however, can be
exerCIsed
boundarIes.
ASSIstance
only
wIthln
fIxed
In admInIsterIng General
rellef the county acts as
an agent of the state.
When a statute
confers
upon
a state agency the
authorIty
to adopt
regulatlons
to
lmplement, Interpret, make speCIfIC or
40
otherWIse carry out
Its prOVISIons,
the
agency's
regulatIons must
be
conSIstent,
not In confllct wIth the
statute,
and reasonably necessary to
effectuate
Its purpose.
Mooney v.
PIckett, 4 Cal. 3d 069, 679, 483 P.2d
1231, 1237, 94 Cal. Rptr. 279,28':)
(1971) .
In Mooney,
the CalifornIa Supreme Court struck down a
County of San Mateo
regulatIon whIch denIed non-emergency
General ASSIstance to employable SIngle men.
The Court oplned
that
when unemployment
IS hIgh or on
t he I nc rease, "many
reSIdents
employable
of
these countIes who
are
mentally and phYSIcally
fact unable to obtaIn
fInd
themselves
In
employment " .li!....... at 4 Cal. 3d 669, 675, 483 P.2d 1231,
1233, 94 Cal. Rptr. 279, 282 (1971).
In 1976, San FranCISCO County maIntaIned a General
ASSIstance program whIch prOVIded a flat monthly monetary
grant of $83.00 for men and $88.00 for women. These amounts
were
found to be far below all recognIzed Indlces of mInImum
poverty standards.
(TJhe
fIXIng of a level of aId so far
below what IS necessary to surVIve to
persons who have no other means by
whIch
to
II ve
1S arbItrary and
caprICIOUS and not conSIstent WIth the
Ojbect5
and
purposes of
the
law
41
relatIng to publIc aSSIstance programs
set
forth
In sectIon
10000.
CIty &
County of
San FranCISCO v. SuperIor
Court, 57 Cal. App. 3d 44, 49, 128
Cal. Rptr. 712, 716 l1976).
Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000 15 part of a
comprehenSIve scheme of publIC SOCIal serVIces.
SectIon 17000
15 set
forth
In part
5 of Dlvlslon 9 of the Welfare and
Instltut10ns Code.
Sectlon
10000,
whIch appl1es
to all
services under dIVISIon 9, states the
fundamental
legIslatIon:
protectIon,
purpose of
"to pro'vIde
th us
for
care,
and aSSIstance to
the
people of
the state
In need
thereof,
and
to promote
the welfare
and happIness of all of the people of
the state by prOVIdIng approprIate aId
and serVices to all of Its needy and
distressed. Mooney v. PIckett, 4 Cal.
3d 669, 672, 483 P.2d 1231, 1232, 94
Cal. Rptr. 279,280 (1971).
In order to Clrcumvent thelr mandatory duty to relieve
and
support
Indlgents,
countIes have plead eIther lack of
fInanCial
resources
or have establIshed General ASSIstance
programs which are underfunded or purposefully des1gned to
exclude
eligIble
applicants as a cost
saVIng measure.
42
Bernhardt v. Alameda Countv Board of SuperVIsors, 58 Cal. App.
3d 806, 130 Cal. Rptr. lSQ (1976); CIty and County of San
FranCISCO v. Superlor Court, 57 Cal. App. 3d 44,128 Cal.
Rptr.
712 (1976).
Los Angeles County's emergency shelter and
hOUSIng program appears to have been conceived, and certaInly
has been
Implemented, In a manner whIch operates to exclude
IndIVIduals who are elIgIble and In desperate need of shelter.
By creatIng an emergency shelter system WhICh prImarIly
utIlIzes rooms In dIlapIdated, dangerous, vermin lnfested SkId
Row hotels
located In one of the hIghest crIme areas of the
CI ty,
the County has VIrtually guaranteed that large numbers
of homeless IndIVIduals WIll be denIed aSSIstance In the form
of emergency shelter. The nature and locatIon of SkId Row
hotels effectIvely forecloses meanIngful use.
More
Importantly, In applYIng for General RelIef In Los
Angeles County.
emergency shelter IS usually the flrst and
most VItal step In the process.
Many homeless IndIVIduals are
effectIvely deterred from applYIng for General RelIef at all
SInce
they know applIcatIon and contInued receIpt of benefIts
are condItIoned
upon
theIr belng
true effect of
aSSIgned to a SkId Row
the County's emergency
voucher hote 1.
The
shelter program not
only forecloses access
to emergency
shelter,
but
also deters and prevents
IndIgent
homeless
IndlVlduals from applYlng for, and receIVIng, General RelIef.
It IS ObVIOUS that the emergency shelter program
currently utIlIzed by Los Angeles County
IS de lIterate ly
deSIgned
to save the County money Slnce In actual operatlon.
43
1 t
effectIvely
prevents
and deters qualIfIed homeless
for necessary emergency shelter.
IndIVIduals
And WIthout
from applYIng
shelter and a resIdence address, an IndIVIdual
does not qualIfy for General RelIef at all.
What on Its face
appears
to be a denlal of shelter,
operates In fact to also
deny all
aSSIstance to qualIfIed IndIVIduals
In the form of
General RelIef.
The mandatory duty lmposed upon countles by Welfare and
InstItutIons Code SectIon 17000 may not be evaded by pleas of
fInanCIal
constrcllnts.
" It
IS clear
that
sectIon
17000
Imposes
upon
the .
county .
a mandatory duty to
relIeve and support Its lnd1gents, and the excuse that It
cannot afford to do 50 15 unava Illng." Boehm v. County of
Merced,
FranCISco v.
tal. App. 3d ____ (1985); CIty and County of San
SuperIor Court, 57 Cal. App. 3d 44,47, 128 Cal.
Rptr. 712,714 (1976).
If countIes are permItted to restrIct,
manIpulate, or deter establIshment of or effectIve utIlIzatIon
of General ASSIstance programs by eIther Inadequate budgetary
allocatlons or ellgIblIty standards and faCIlitIes
purposefully deSIgned to foreclose use bv statutorIly
qualIfIed lndlgents, the duty Imposed by SectIon 17000 would
for all Intents and purposes become dIscretIonary, rather than
mandatol"'Y.
Boehm v. County of Merced, ____ Cal. App. 3d
(1985).
In County of
Los AnQeles v. Payne,
8 tal. 2d 563, 66
P.2d 6~8
(1937),
the Los Angeles county audltor refused to
Issue warrants under an emergency resolutIon authorIZIng $1
44
m tl 11 on
dollars for
re lIe f
of the poor
offICIals had
and
lndlgent.
The
court
held
that
county
no
authority
or
dlscretlon
to Withhold
the funds Since
they were mandatory
expenditures reqUired by law.
[Tlhe Sltuatlon In the county of Los
Angeles
WhICh
the
Increased
expendItures are deSigned to remedy 15
of a most preSSing character, and one
from
whIch
ImmedIate
rs lIef
15
reqUired
If human
lIfe
15
to be
sustaIned and
the health
of a large
number of persons IS to be preserved.
Los Angeles County v.
Payne, 8 ea I .
2d 563,568, 66 P.2d 658,663 (1937),
The ultImate
finanCIal burden of
aidIng and aSSistIng
lndlgents
falls on
taxpayers.
While the magnItude of thlS
burden mer1ts conSIderatIon, courts have consIstently held
that WIth respect to the County's mandatory duty under Welfare
and InstItutions Code SectIon 17000, "theIr burdens were not
so grIevous as to permIt IndIgents In the mIdst of plenty, to
go hungry, cold and naked, WIthout
fault."
Cltv &. Countv of
San FranCISCO v. SuperIor Court, 57 Cal. App. 3d 44, 47, 128
Cal. Rptr. 712,714-715 (1976).
In San Franclsco v. CollIns, 216 Cal. 187, 13 P.2d 912
(1932), the Supreme Court of CalIfornIa holdIng that a county
had a mandatory duty to support Its poor, also considered how
It could ralse the funds WIth whIch to do 50. In 1932, at the
41]
helght of the DepreSSIon, 40,000-60,000 familIes stood In need
of county prOVIded a~sistence. "The grave and Immediate
neceSSIty of some salutary measures
to care for persons made
indIgent as
establIshed
a
result of the
current economIC depreSSion 15
by
the
allegatIons
of
the
petltion.
The
extraordlnary
number
of
people In need 15
a ma t t e r 0 f 5 U c h
common
knowledge
that
we
may take JudICIal
notlce of It."
City
188,
and County of San FranCISCO
v. CollIns, 216 Cal. 187,
13 P.2d 912. 913 (1932).
It was estImated by CIty
and county oftlClals that
$6,7000,000 would
the Indigent SIck
property
taxes
be reqUired In flscal year 1932-33 to aId
and poor of the county. An Increase 1n
conSIdered and reJected that because the
was
tax
InCrease
reqUIred
would cause
WIdespread default among
taxpayers
clty and
muniCIpal
Issue to
thereby JeopardizIng the fInanCial stabilIty of the
county as a whole. In lIeu of lncreasIng taxes,
officals adopted an ordInance callIng for a bond
raIse the necessary revenue. The ordInance was
delIvered to the county registrar of voters who refused to
place It on the ballot claIming It was unlawful.
The Supreme Court Issued a wrIt of mandate dlrectlng the
regIstrar of voters to place the bond measure on the ballot,
holdIng that It was empowered to Issue bonds to raIse revenues
In
order to comply WIth Its
mandatory duty to aId and aSSIst
Indlgents.
Collins 15 of vltal Importance because It stands for the
propOSItIon that whatever the source, be it taxatIon or bonds,
46
a county must raIse the funds necessary for It to comply wlth
Its mandatory duty under Welfare and InstItutIons Code SectIon
17000.
Las Angeles County had adopted and contInues to malntaln
a General Relief Program whlch both In theory and appl1catlon
IS clearly contrary to the statutory Intent and purposes of
both Welfare and InstItutIons Code Sectlons 10000 and 17000.
Eltglble
lndlVlduals
must
have a reSIdence
to qualtfy for
General RelIef.
Homeless IndIVIduals seekIng both shelter and
aSSIstance for food and clothIng are prOVIded WIth shelter In
a SkId Row voucher hotel. If they refuse or declIne shelter
In these faCIlItIes, whIch from all avaIlable eVIdence as to
theIr
location and condItIon any reasonable person would be
JustIfIed In dOIng, they fall to qual1fy for General RelIef at
all. It 15 a Catch-22 system deSIgned solely to save the
County money and whlch forces countless elIgIble and qualIfIed
lndIvlduals to go not only wlthout shelter, but other baSIC
necessltles
of
11 f e as we I I .
In
short,
the County's
aSSIstance program 15 go to SkId Row or go WIthout.
Admlnlstrat1ve
standards and
InterpretatIons must be
rejected when contrary to statutory Intent. PaCIfIC Legal
Found. v. CalifornIa Unemployment In.surance Appeals Board, 29
Cal. 3d 101, 111, 624 P.2d 244, 248, 172 Cal. Rptr. 194, 198
(1981). "AdmInIstratIve regulations that alter or amend the
statute or enlarge or ImpaIr ItS scope are VOId and courts not
only may}
but
1 t
15
their oblIgatIon to strike down such
47
regu I a t Ions. II Moone~,) v. PI cke t t, 4 Ca I. 3d 669, 681, 483 P. 2d
1231, 1239, 94 Cal. Rptr. 279, 287 (1971).
It 1S not the contentIon of the CIty Attorney that the
County of Los Angeles IS under a mandatory duty to establlsh
and maIntaIn emergency shelters or hOUSIng In Santa MonIca or
any other partIcular munlClpallty or unlncorporated area of
the County. However, It 15 our contentIon that Welfare and
Instltutlons Code SectIons 10000 and 17000 obllgate the County
to establIsh and maintaIn an emergency shelter and hOUSIng
program WhICh by Its very nature and location does not operate
IndIVIduals
receIVIng
both
and deterrent to quallfled
shelter and General RelIef
as a
slgnlflcant
dISIncentIve
aSSIstance. To meet ltS obllgatlon, the County should provlde
hOUSIng whlch meets all applIcable health, safety, and hOUSIng
codes,
has adequate stafflng to eneure the personal safety of
occupants,
and
fInally be located In an area whIch does not
subject men and women to the spectre of runnIng a constant
gauntlet of VIolence and brutalIty as the price for emergency
shelter whlch they are statutorily entltled to, and whIch the
County 15 under a mandatory duty to prOVIde.
48
IV.
ANALYSIS OF R~STRICTIONS ON
AUTOMOBILES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SLEEP I t~G
IN
A. Issue.
The purpose of
Part
IIJ of
thIS Staff Report IS to
examIne
legal authority and POlICY
ImplIcatIons related to a
propo~ed ordInance whIch would prohIbIt or restrlct occupIed
vehIcles from beIng parked overn1ght In resIdent1al areas.
B. LeQal AuthorIty.
The VehIcle Code expressly delegates
to CItIes the
author I ty to
regulate parkIng on streets and In munICIpal
parkIng
lots WIthIn Its
JurIsdIctIon.
VehIcle Code SectIons
22507 and 22519.
NotWIthstandIng the general power of a CIty
tor e g u I ate par kIn g, 1 t 1:5 a fun d a me n tal p r I n c I pie t hat "[ r] he
streets of a CIty belong to the people of the state, and every
CItIzen of the state has a
rIght to the use thereof, subject
to
leglslatlve control
II
Ex parte DanIels, 183 Cal.
636, 639, 192 P. 4~2, 444 (1920); see also, Rumford v. CIty of
Berkele).!,
3 1 Ca I .
3d 545. 049, 64? P.2d 124, 126, 183 Cal.
Rptr. 73, 75 (1982),
The mere
fact
that
one's property adjOInS a publIC
street
confers no speCIal
rlght~ upon
the property owner.
Generally,
the owner or OCCUpIer of property adjacent to, or
ad]Olnlng a CIty street has no greater property rIghts In the
street
In
front of theIr reSIdence
than any other member of
the publIC.
49 Ops. Cal. Att 'y Gen. 81 (1967).
49
Cltles may only enact or enforce parklng or traff1c
ordInances WhICh are expressly authorIzed by the Vehlcle Code
and consIstent I.<Jlth Its prOVISIons. "The VehIcle Code
contaIns
1ts own preemptIon rule."
County of Los Angeles v.
189, 612 P.2d 24, 26, 16?
CI ty
Ca 1.
of Alhambra, 27 Cal. 3d 18'-+,
Rptr. 440,442 (1980).
Pursuant
to speCIfIC provlsIon5 of
the Vehlcle Code a
city may "prohlblt or restrIct the parklng or standing of
vehicles on certaIn streets. durIng all or certaln hours
of the day." VehIcle Code Sect Ion 22'?07. In enact lng parkIng
ordInances
under
SectlDn 22507,
a
CIty may utlllze a
preferentIal parkIng system on deSIgnated streets for the use
of resldents and their guests. 8y utIllzlng permlts Issued by
the CIty and postIng adequate SIgns, reSIdents and guests may
be exempted
from parkIng restrIct10ns
Imposed by ordInance.
VehIcle Code Sectlon 22507.
CIties may also speCIfIcally prohIbIt
or restrIct the
parklng of
standIng vehlcles on deSIgnated city streets
between
the hours of 2 a.m.
and 6 8.m.
VehIcle Code SectIon
22507.5.
PermIts may be Issued exemptIng "handIcapped persons
and resldents of hlgh-densIty, multIple-famIly dwellIng areas
or SImIlar arees lacklng adequate off-street parkIng
faCllltles." VehIcle Code SectIon 22507.5.
Whtle SectIons
22507 and 22507.5 dIstIngUIsh between
commercl.;:sl and other vehIcles, there 15 no dIstInctIon between
occupIed
or
unoccupIed vehIcles.
Both are subJect
to
munICIpal parklng prohlbltlons or restrIctIons.
50
As
a
general rule, a vlolatlon
of a parklng ordInance
constItutes
an InfractIon.
Uehlcle Code SectIon 40000.1.
If
a
vehIcle
15
unattended
<:It
the
tIme a
parkIng ordInance
VIolatIon
15
comm1tted, the regIstered
owne r 1 s presumed to
have
comm1tted
the
Ylolatlon
1 f
statutory wrItten notIce
reqUIrements are followed.
VehIcle Code Section 41102(a).
C. RegulatIon of Sleeplng or Occupancy In Automob1les.
The CIty CounCIl could ObVIously address the concern of
people sleepIng In reSIdentIal neIghborhoods by prohIb1t1ng
the parkIng of all vehIcles durIng speCIfIed hours or by
InstItutIon
of
preferentIal
parkIng zones.
Ho INe ve r, 1 tIS
assumed that the CIty CounCIl,
thIS area, prefers legIslatlon
If It deslres leglslat lon In
more spec1fIcally dlrected at
the problem of persons sleepIng In auto~oblles In reSIdentIal
areas.
Any ordInance dIrected at "sleepIng"
15 lIkely to have
#
enforcement problems.
If "sleepIng" In parked vehIcles rather
than
merely parkIng 15
the focal p01nt of any ordInances,
be establIshed.
two
essentIol elements must
Wh 1 I e
the
SIngle
element
of parkIng
In VIolatIon of
posted hours 1S subject to easy proof, the "sleepIng" element
may prove exceedIngly dIffIcult. ObVIously, the lndlvIdual
must
actually be observed "sleeplng.1I
In vehIcles WhICh are
beIng
ut11lzed as a temporary or permanent reSIdence and have
portlons not readIly acceSSIble to VIew such as campers, vans,
51
and trucks wIth shells, proof
sleeping may be Imposslble.
If, rather than fOCUSIng
that an IndiVIdual IS actually
on parkIng and sleeplng, the
ordInance
Focuses
or, pa rk I ng and
1I0ccupancy" of vehicles on
deSignated resldentlal streets, there are st1LI problems With
determIning WhICh types of occupancy should be restricted.
Occupied vehicles are frequently parked 1n resldentlal areas
for
a varIety of reasons and
tIme perlods.
At what pOInt In
t 111'8
after
parking
does contInued occupancy of the vehIcle
constitute
a
VIolatIon'
Is
the occupancy tIme frame ten
IndIVIduals occupylng a parked
mInutes 01'
an hour or more? Are
to
or lIstenIng to musIc for a
deemed In VIolatIon of the
car and who are talklng, neckIng
susta1ned
ordlnance)
t Ime
perlod
be
In the opInIon of the CIty Attorney, the proper focus of
an
occupancy ordinance IS on the
amount of tIme a vehicle IS
occupied
and
not who IS OccupYIng
a vehIcle or the speCIfiC
purpose the vehicle IS belng occupIed.
PolIce ofFlcers are 1n
a
poor
pOSItIon
to
make determInatIons other
than tIme of
occupancy.
There are essent1ally two prImary competIng Interests
whlch must be carefully conSIdered and weIghed In determinIng
whether an ordlnance restrlctlng or prohIbIting overnight
occupIed vehIcle parkIng should be adopted, and If adopted,
Its speCifIC prOVISIons. That segment of the homeless
commun1ty who
use
theIr vehIcles as
theIr prImary means of
shelter
utilIze reSIdentIal streets because reSidentIal areas
52
are essentIally safer and provIde less rIsk of phYSIcal harm,
harassment}
and theft than oarklng
In commerCial streets and
lots,
WIth hIgh pedestrIan
and vehIcular traffIC.
ReS1dents
In areas
where
occupIed
'..'eh lC les are
parked for prolonged
related to whether or
perlods
also
have legltlmate concerns
not the IndIVIduals are harmless or surveYIng the neIghborhood
for crIminal actIVIty.
In
strIkIng a balance between
these two lnterests, the
Clty CounCIl
follOWIng:
mIght
conSIder
an
ordInance
such
as
the
No vehIcle occupIed by any person for
more than 30 minutes between the hours
of
12:00 a.m. and
15:00 a.m. shall be
parked
R-2-R,
on any street In the R-1} P-2,
R-3}
or
R-4
ReSIdentIal
DIstrIcts
after any occupant of such
vehIcle
has
been ordered
by a peace
offIcer to move such vehIcle from such
street.
An
ordInance
of
tl-ns
nature
has
the
advantage
of
partlcularlzed responSIveness to CItIzen complaInts.
As
an
a I ternat Ive, or In
addItIon, to conSIderIng the
adoptIon
of
an
ordInance WhlCh
restrIcts occupIed vehIcles
areas, the problem might be
frDm beIng parked In reszdentzal
alleVIated by prOVIdIng a superVIsed parkIng area near
restroom faClllt1es for IndIVIduals USing theIr vehIcles for
shelter.
53
V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
It IS re~pectfully recommended that the Clty Counc11:
1.
Adopt
the accompanYIng resolutIon urglng the State
LegIslature
to
enact
legIslatIon
establlshlng mandatory
Qutpatlent programs and faCllltles.
2.
Take
such
actlon
as
the CIty Councll
deems
approprIate
to address
the
f"n lure
of
the County of Los
Angeles
to comply wlth Lanterman-Petrls-Short Act admlSSlon
standards for "gravely dIsabled" IndIVIduals.
3.
Take
such
actIon
as
the CIty Councll
deems
approprlate
to address
the
faIlure
of
the County of Los
Angeles
to comply With its mandatory
legal duty to prOVide
shelter for the homeless.
4.
Take
such
actIon
as
the City CounCIl
deems
approprIate WIth respect to
restrIctIons on parking occupIed
vehlcles In resldentlal nelghborhoods.
PREPARED BY:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Raymond F. CorreIa, Deputy Clty Attorney
S4
APPENDIX I
CA Rr1M: rC~ot res
City Council MeetIng 1-29-8~
Santa Manica, Callfornla
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6969(CCS)
(CIty Councll SerIes)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CfTY
OF SANTA MONICA URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE
TO ENACT LEGISLATION RELATING TO
THE MENTALLY ILL HOMELESS
i.J~EPE~'3 ,
currerlt
prOVISIons of
the La~terman-Petrls~
Shorr:
Act
relatIng
to CIVll
CO 10m 1 t rr.e r. t
o~
the mentally
cIsorder""d
3nd graveiy jlsabled are
lnadequate for deellng
Wit r
tre
c.....; r 0 n I C a 1 I y me n tal I y 1 1 I who
either refu5~ Qr are
reluctant to ~e~K treatment; and
WHEREAS,
lndlVlduals
are
released Into
the community
from state ~Gspltais and county mental health facllltles who
are
Incapable
of surVival In
the communIty Independently or
WIth The ~elp of famIly or frlend~; and
WHEREri5.
current
prOVISionS of
the lanter-man-Petrls-
Short
~ct
Co
not
reqUIre
a
mandatory pre-dIscharge
ceter-mlnar Ion to be made on the Issue of whether an IndiVIdual
IS
cap3b:e of survlvlng
Independently outSIde an Instltutlon
~lthcwt so~e care and superVISIon; ~nd
uJHEREAS,
rnan).' of
the
homeless people wandering the
streets
Of Sa~ta Monica and other c1tles throughout the state
and
crowol~g emergency shelters or
gOIng Without shelter are
1
chrOr"'lcaLly
menta lly
I 1 1
and
are
1 n
desperate
need
of
ap~~Dprlate treatment arC shelter and
whE~E"-4S,
InstItutionalIzation In state mental hospitals
I :s
net
always an appropriate or
necessary optlon In deallng
wIth chr,:;nlcally mel1tally III homeless l"'ldIVlduals; and
WHEREAS,
some
homeless
mentally
1 1 I
IndlVlduals are
"G.-.avely
DIsabled"
and
due
to
the nature
of their mental
dl5orde~
are
unWillIng
or Incapable
of utIlizing voluntary
a55~staf"1Ce
or
treatment
In
those
Instances
when
1 t
IS
avaIlable; and
WHEREAS,
courts of thiS state are currently WIthout the
opt Ion
of InitIally commIttIng
mentally dlsabled or mentally
disordered
IndiVIduals or plaCing IndIVIduals dIscharged from
state
hosplta~s
and
county
menta!
health
faClllt les Into
mandatory outpatient treatment programs; and
WHERE'-6 )
there
ar-e
Inadequate
rumbers
and
types of
ccmnunlty me~ta! ~ealth faCilItIes SUItable for Implementation
of a ~andatory outpatient treatment program; and
WHERE~S. CIty streets and emergency shelters have become
alternative
l'1S~ 1 tut lons
to house large
numbers of mentally
, ,
1 1 i
per50~5 wno are no longer
beIng served by the county and
state mental health treatment sY5tem; and
WHE2EAS,
approxImately
20
states
currently
permIt a
court
to
order
mandatory
outpatIent treatment
In place of
hOspltallzatlon for patlent~ In the CIVIl commItment proces5,
2
NOW,
THEQEFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CI1Y OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1.
The CIty CouncIl of the CIty of Santa MonIca
Su~DOits
the
enactment
of
legl~latlon
by
the
Callforr'lCl
LegIslature
to establIsh a statewlde
~ystem of court ordered
mandatory out-patIent treatment,
p~e-dlscharge hearlngs ~rom
state
ard
county ment~l
health
InstItutIons,
stanc!ard'5
far
"gravely
disabled"
to
el"sure
and tIghter
conslstent
5tatew~ce
applIcatIon.
These
programs
should
Include and
enco~pass the followIng ele~ents:
(a)
A
fundIng
mechanIsm
that
a II ows
fo r
the
slmultanecus
prOViSIon of mental
health and shelter serVIces
WIt h
for
varled
lengths of stay and Intensltles of Interventlon
the
I-Iorr>e less
chronlcally mentally
1 1 1 .
These
would
Include:
1
EaSIly acceSSible
dormItory
type
emergency
shelte"'s.
2. Structured brlef atay rC51dences.
3 I~termedlate stay hOUSing wlth both shared and
pr.vate rooms.
4 Aoequate and aFfordable permanent houslng.
(b ~
ir.e
!:neiter
and
treatment needs
of tf;e h~meless
chr"onlcally
cne r' tally 1 1 1 pop '..J i a t 1 0,'
be speclflcally lncluded
1 n
courty
p~arrlng serv:ce prIoritIes
under the Short-Doyle
Act
3
(c )
lJutreach
assessment
a.,d
evaluation
serVI,:es
designed
tc
contact
~omeless
me n t a I 1 Y
111 persons
In the
places w~~re they tend to congregate
(d)
~edlcal
care must be made available since homeless
~e~tally disordered IndIVIduals ~uffer an extraordlnarlly hlgh
rate of medical and hyglene prablems.
(e) A5s1gn~ent of a case manager responsIble tor each
pat lent
ar'd
:..J 1 t h
authority
to
deSignate
and
Implement
mandatory
treatme'lt
and
service plans.
Case managers ~U5t
~alntalr ero~gh contact With patIents to recognize eVidence of
lr'creased
SOCial adaptation or
clinical exacerbation, and to
gUIde patients to the services approprIate at any time.
( f': :
t1entai
hea 1 t h
staff
speclflcally
selected
and
trained to wor~ With the ch~onlcally mentally 111 homeless.
(g )
A mandatory
determinatIon
be
made prior
to an;,.J
IndIVidual being dIscharged from a state mental hospital or
cou~tv me....tal health faclllty as to whether the Indlvldual IS
capable of surVIval 1n the community Independently or WIth the
r.elp of family or friends.
(h) If an Individual 15 found
Incapable of surViving
Indepondent Ly
In
the
communIty,
the court
may utilize the
oPt lon
of placement
1n an
appropr1ate mandatory out-patIent
as the IndIVIdual IS found to be
orogram
Lint: 1
such
time
capable 0;' Independerlt liVIng.
':';:::CT I Oi~ 2.
The City CounCIl of the City of Santa MonIca
Cd lIs
uP-:"l'I
local
City governments
and
the County OC Los
8ngeles t~ or;ng before the Governor and State Legislature the
4
press 1 '--'g
reed ~or a mandatory outpatIent program In order to
realIst lcall'),
co~prehen51vely, and 5ystematlcally respond to
t~e problem of r~e chronIcally mentally 111 a~d especIally the
hcrr;eless chronlcaliy mentally Ill.
'3ECT : QN 3
The Clty Clerk shall certIfy to the adoptlon
of
trls
~esolutlon, and thenceforth
and thereafter the same
shall be In ~~ll force and effect
APPROVED AS TO ~ORM:
~~.~~
ROBERT M MYERS --
CIty Attorney
?
Ado~ted a~C approved thIS 29th day of January, 1985.
/
I A /IAA
V V:J" \
I hereby certIfy t~at the foregol~g ResolutIon No. 6969(CC3)
was duly adopted by the CIty CouncIl of the CIty of Sa~ta MonIca
at a Uleetlng thereof held Or'l January 29, 1985 by the followl"'lg
C0UI1Cll vote:
4.yes: Cout1cllmembers: Conn, EpsteIn, Katz, Zane and
Mayor Pro Tempore Je!'1nI~gs
Noes: Cou'1cIlmembers: NOr'le
i\.bstal'1' Cou"lcllmembers: None
~bsent: Cou:>cllmembers: Edwards and Mayor Reed
ATTEST:
~11 ~~
CIty Clerk
VOTE' AffIr~atlve-
Negatlve'
Abstaln'
A b s e nt- ..E'.c-7 C<' /-!f.,.J s: /" vCec_"f
PROOf' YC:':!=~ ~;,;r:-H A;(OTHER PERSOS BEFORE ANVTHIKG
DISTRi3UTIO~- ORIGI~Ai ~o be signed, sealed and
BEFORE
DISTRIBUTIO~ CHECK CO~TE~T OF ALL
/ CJ i Ci
,c !Ie' /
df f)/c-
/1 - '{! -
I .
,
,/V6
S;-47~ ~, .:7/ J-
DISTRIBUTIO~ OF RESOLUTI0~ #
Councll ~eetlng Da!e
~genda
Item ~
l\' as 1 t amended?
FOR CITYCfERK'S ACTIO?\"
ORDIN~\lCE if
Introduced-
Adopted-
P.JJ.iAYS Pu13LISH AOOPIED ORDINANCES *
*Cro5s O'J.t l\ttorney I s approval
~
~EWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date'
flIed In Vault.
J
)
Department origlnatlng st2ff report (
~anage~ent Ser~l~es Lynne 3arrette 0rdlnances only
Agency mentIoned In document or staff report
SubJect rlle (agenda packet)
Counter flle
Others'
;hrport
Parklng Auth.
Aud:;toruTJ1
Personnel
BUlldlIlg De;;t
PlannIng
En1."1 ron. Serv
Pollce (en-
forcement?)
FlJ~ance
PurchaSIng
Flre
Recr,lFarks
General Serv
. .
LltJrar:v-
Transportation
Treasurer
~tanager
SE~D Fnu~ COPIES or AL~ ORDINANCES TO:
COD~D SYSTE~S, Atin Pete~ Mac(earLe
120 ~~aIn "<~;:r<.:"et
AV0~. ~ew Jersey_Oi7li
I I I
SEND FOUR COPIES OF AT.! ORnT~A~rp~ to:
PRESIDING JUDGE
SA~TA MOKICA ~UNICIPAL COURT
i 72 S ~1AI\ STREET
SA~TA ~ONICA, CA 90401
~
".
(certifIedQ)
1
1
.
*Check Code SectlOns before sendmg.
TOTAL COPIES
~L
APPENDIX II
.. '
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES · HARBOR.UCLA MEDICAL C5I"TEij
(213) 533- 2101
WILLIAM H SWANSON. M D
MEDICAL DIRECTOR
November 28, 1984
EDWARD J FOLEY
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR
James F. Keane
ChIef of PolIce
[1 tv of Santa r10mca
Departme~t of PolIce
1685 MaIn Street
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa 90401
Dear ChIef Keane:
Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA MedIcal Center provIdes psychIatrIc
evaluatIon serVIces 7 days per week. 24 hours per day. ThIs IS not
precluded by the fact that It IS frequently very dIffIcult to fInd beds
for patIents requIrIng hospItalIzatIon.
From tIme to tIme our volu~e of patIents awaItIng hospItalIzatIon far
exceeds our physIcal capacIty and abIlIty to adequately hold addItIonal
patIents. and we may ask that you delay as long as possIble before
presentIng the patIent at our faCIlIty. However, we want to always
work closely wIth the polIce, keep you Informed of the sItuatIon and the
reason for any delay In acceptIng the patIent.
I apprecIate your takIng the tIme to brIng your concerns to my attentlon
and I have shared your letter wIth the ChaIrman, Department of PsychIatry.
We hope that such occurrences can be kept to a mlnlmum but that you can
also understand the problems that we sometImes face In deallng wIth the
patIent populatIon.
If I can be of further aSsIstance, please do not hesItate to contact me.
SIncerely,
~;p
Admlnlstrator
~ ....
'"" ....
""'
EJF: T Af'.1: mz
-.;
--
..
,
o
\0
:'?
.... --:~
~"r.
-
c:x;)
-c-
1000 WEST CARSON STREET.
TORRANCE. CALIFORNIA 90509
%
APPENDIX III
c ( ) L ~ I Y 0 F L () S ,\ '\. ( 11 - I J - S
~
J98~8S (~R\'D ILRY
, ~ .. c ~ C I" ~ t . A. L L -;:: ,_ ...) ~ F;.; II C. t. G
les A> ri[~ C.r...:...-"r- L.---'02
!:- -I. ~;3
JonU21-y ]5, 1985
~orOJ~~}e =C21d of S~pelvIsors
~~3 P?]} of ~~mln'st]atlon
";(:0 i~Lst Tl--rJe Stlcet
~ c s ].. ;-. 9 E ] C" s, C a j 1 f 01 n j a 9 (: 0 ] 2
C<:-pt] co;,.con:
'jr.e Soclal Selvices CO~tlTlttee of the J.cs :'-,sc]cs CC'unty GJc],d
,~t ' ! Y 1) J ~ e 1 \. 1 L"'" <.? d a r 'n I n J. s t rat c r sa" d c-' P I 0 1 l~ C, S 0 f tho see c' \) n t y
CCf2'lt,:-,,-c.n'Ls \}'lch provl<5e selVlccs {or the Lcr,c:>)l'ss. Ve viSlted
CCLrly facl]ltlcs as well as prlv2lely fc~~C'd s~clters. ~~~bels
C'f tLe Cl"I':,:t'Lce 2colted Sl"'vc-ral j"eetlJlgs of the COUl1t}-\,'~de 'Task
FOlce on the ~cre]c~~. St~alC'S ~ere r?de of e~t('-rsive lcports on
t'~e GJjjf'i,c:,cn of ih? plc,bJr-iT'. Our fll~(:2] gs il.dIcate the
f 0] ] c y':;' "g :
J,es ;".nsC']cs COl:"ly ):( alS ",n t:--';21r shC!le of the bu::.opn of a
naijo'-,al p'obJern. T)CC-1(? 21e [IUD 35, to 50,000 hc;i1el(>~s l.lVlng
tb1 Cl'~J-ic,ut J.es ~J CjC>] es CC'.;l1ly. TIns hc:s cc".e r.~)out pllr.arlly
U' ~ 0 L 9 h (1) c e j J1 S i 1 t u i .1 CT cd 1 Z a t Jon - - n a 'l1 0:- y J. de d ll'T, p:1 n 9 0 f
l- U ,- G 1 pes 0 f i >. 0 U 5 c jl C 5 0 f ,;-, <2 r. tal 1 y 1] 1 c'" tot. }-, est r e e t s ; ( 2 )
]'-'Co-".';520 \Jr:. r:::Tpl 0) '":Ient crJd under Ec;-,?lo~ J-.<::nt -- nany ne\,'ly
U,-'(~',~)]cj.c:>d, sIngle parent L",mllJC2S and ~'Gur'ser men and ,'orren \\110
h2::ve \-'c'l~.ed all theIr lIves end are po....' u:lable to fInd jobs
the so-calJed displaced ]T']f3ole class~ (3) lalge pCrT,bers of
~ unig1 ""Its and 1 efusees locc.t2ng .1n Los ;'"seles County;
(.q "G:rcihourod Therr.py" -- tbe lest of tl~e r,ctlon gi"')JJg the
llc,-,elc.ss a olJc-\:ey tlc},et to J,os ;"rgclcs, j.=;]dng this County the
rC:-Ilosll0:q: of a patJo)~al plobJeoiTI apd U~e Capitol of the homelcss.
\;h J j e ..... e a p p } cud the 5 p] end.1 d v 0 ] un tee ran d p r (1 f e s S .1 0 n ale f f (n t s
to dale, far too little is being done to resolve the plight of
t '!-Je h0iO,e] e ss. J.] 1 t he l~ent a 1 Rea 1 th Reg ions in Los Ange 1 es
County are funded only to approximately 20% of the level recom-
r'C'JJopd in tr.e Califol-nia IJccel for Care of the nentally Ill.
Thcse given priority for service are the severely and chronically
disturbed patients -- the rest, for the most part, are on their
o.,.,,'n.
l~lfare offices in the Central area are a o.1sgrace. They are
over-croV'ded and unGer-staffed. People needing aid generally
~ait as much as a full day and even ]o0ger to be interviewed.
J~entally disturbed and e~otionally distraught applicants are
ur-able to f111 out the COmplex and repetitive forms. A mistake
I'
..It
I
:: I' 'C.] :' l~ ] e Be a r d 0 f Sup e 1 v J .., 01 S
2
.1"'il;,~lY ] 5, ] 9~S
or an inflaction leads to timc-co~su~ing corll?ctions, possJble
denial of benef1ts or a 50-day penalty, and lcturn to the
stlcets.
The ],O,lC? 1 ess are e> posed to viol ence c: nd (:,,01 i oni'll problems \ 'hi ch
oft0n lead to involve~ent with drugs 2nd alcohol, further
~sgJ2\al1-g the ploblem. The bome]ess ale ~ubject to selious
rr-JysJcal 1]][";(>5S due to poor hysiene apd L~ck of S.1nltary
r",cJ1J1Jes. 'ihJS lc?r.s to potentJal cc,-.s"crdcable c11sp<se
r 1 ct. 1 t.-'-'- S ~ U C l-) a s t t' !J.:' 1 C u J 0 S j S,C Y S Eo n t e r y a r; d e \ en the p r. c- U ..'ie' n i c
[elm of bvbonic pJague. ThJS 1S a ~eritable pc~der keg.
Thc-re J S a scarci ty of lo.....-cost housing, e\.en for lc.....-incor.le
ir'CIVJduals \~'ho are otherwise ",ble to care for thel;-:sel\'cs. It
reS bc-en alleged that the Department of Public Soclal Selvices
hes FJaccd the homl?less in dIlapidated, rat-Jnfested Sh1d Rev.'
hC\~Slr>g.
!,'ost gO'vE'J1'rents, JJlcJuding Lcs .z.,~'gples County, use the "Calcutta
J:ethoa", "hich is to igl'Cle the plobJe;n untIl the C<-~\)lt t2J...rs
?:ction, then o.;.:::'q~ as s]Cv.' cf1d fcr:b]c a ;-(-':o20'1se as l"C':cc,Jb]e, ?-po
'" 1-] en t r, e ] 2 \. Y e r s S 0 Z" \ c y, d lOp t l-- e r.=:]].
It -:':-i-.(2;) s U'at in ros l,;-'S('}cs Cou1JLy t 1]e cbJl?ctive J S to
t~]~lrate flom publJC assistance as rrany people as possJbJe for
25 Jrpg as pcsslbJe, thus koepipg dc~n County costs and ploVJdlPg
~s )ltt]e ~ervice as pOSSIble to t~ose most in need.
'[lpJe J5 no quick flX, but tllcre 1S no ITt.ystery about the nature
of a ;~iore c:pplOprJate solution. Esst?ntJal1y it \,ould call for
CoJ q:JPg out the 2bo1ted plans of the ]963 ConJ.lunlly ]':ental
)1("aJth ley.; by prOVJdIr1g a spectrum of housing options and related
};ealth care Ci!ld socJal serVlces for the mentally .111. The nc"'ly
unerrployed could rel-j2bllitate t~(:mselves ~ith sene assistance and
,-rr.plcj.r;,ent 1..1-,at pays F2ges high Enough to plovloe for their basic
nccecs.
T}le cC' -"un1 ty 1:1<:,nt a 1 hea 1 th mO\'E-if,ent fa 1] ed prima r lly becau se the
FGdelal and State governments did not allocate the money needed
t-o fulfIll 1ts plomises. The ne\_'ly unE-Irployed are the victims of
lack of jobs and eco~omic policies and mar.age~ent decisions over
~hjch they have no control.
This situation is a national problem a~d a national disgrace. In
su,,~ary, the problem of the homeless in Los Angeles County has
strained local resources to the breaking point, e~posed a
growing, vulnerable population to social and economic problems
bEyond local government's ability to solve, and e~posed all of
the citizens of Los Angeles County to a serious potential health
problem.
f
Fc ,'('J "bJ (? FC?l d of Sl:P(:l \'1 ~,()rS
3
,1,-;'\'rlY ] C, I ) <:1'5
Th:?l cfore, the Los l<ngeles County Grelld Jury ~l gl2s the Los
ArgeJes County Board of 5uperviscns to j;--L'Oiedlolely }CgllPst that
l~e Govprror of this Slate take the foJ]o~ing steps:
1. J~sue a Governor's Frocl2~atlon declarIng
Lcs pngp]es County a di525ler arpa, and
2 . F (" Sue s t t 11 a t tl-; e F 1 Eo 51 d ('- n t 0 f t Y e l~ nit e d
States lss~e a maJor dIsasler dpcl~ralion
for Los !s.geJes Cour,ty.
J'hJS process, If CLlpletc-d, \~'IJl Ja}~e f0cc-ral :Ur~~s ,n'olLobJe to
~ddlCS5 the ffiultiple pr0bJe~s of the hc~eless 2S fCSCllbcd hereIn.
Very truly }CUlS,
Q:<,../ .{Jel!...} ;iL-
G_ orla Deh"ll t
I
rorC::~2n
JS
c: F'?:ch S',12erv] sor
Ch J EO' f .~ G ;;-, I n 1 sir a 11 \" e 0 f f 1 C e r
:'''ch i or-Con 1. ro] I (>r
DIrector, Depar~ment of publIC SocIal SerVIces
~ctlrg DJreclor, DepaltTent of ~ental Health
DJ yco-elor, Eca] 1 h DeF?: 1 t 'f,e nt
APPENDIX IV
.MGmS
. t
e ----- -~~-~~-~~~ P_l!U."fC SCCIAL SE1tvr(-~~
~ .PR" GamtAJ.. FJ;1.TEF APPLICAl'lI'
&mGEra iD1S1lC !)FrTSTnN
-Case Nu:ber
1
I
,
DLiUict s;-..."'~.
I
r Applicant". s ~
,
?art I - Emergency Ho$iog Avail~hle (AT J. GR. Dis l.J.l.cts)
[J Fzn,::rgenc:y lhusiIli Available
l~ and Address of Facility)
AppliCBn~ s Ikcision
[J I underst.and that: I can be issued up to 7 days emergency hous~ (up to 14 days
if I applied at the Civic Center or Echo Park disu.i.ct offices) plus rourrl
trip tra..'1Sportati.cn funds (if the ~'tgeo:y rocsire bcility is mre. tl't.an a ~e
av.~y from this rH ,c::tri.ct office). I agree to accept this e:nergency housing
vacancy .
[] I do not want to accept this ~ency housing. I understand that this I"FBT'1S I
will not receive emergency hous~ at trlis t:im,!..
Part II - No fm~rgalCy Housirrg Availahle in Dist:rict Office Area (CAltlying Distticts Only)
[] There is no e:aergency hou..c;ing available in this rli$trict office area. 'Il'-.e Eligibility
Wo::ker can try to find ~rgency hous~ in another dist.:.ict offire area, W'hiCl."1
incl~p-s t...~ cenrral Los Argeles City area. You can be issue:i up to 7 days ~e-rger:.cy
hous~ (up to 14 days if you applied at the Civic Center or Echo Pari< district
offices) rIus :u.n::i i:~l.p tra."'lsportat::inn funds (if the emergency OO.lSi...Jg facilit'j is
iiiQ~ tT..&n a mile a"..ay from tiIis district office) .
~p licant' s Decision_
[J I want the Eligibility Worker to try to find 1odg~ in anot1::er area.
[J I dv not \<.a.'1t lcxiging in anotr.er area. I ~erst&"ld that this :,/,~.c:lns I ",.-ill
not receive PmPt'geocy lodging at this time.
Signacure of ApplicCi.ac
Dei te
Signature of EligibiliL-y Wor:~r
Date
. ........ - ..
r ~e !I
~.=====_=sa:=~====UD_________~~~______~_~~~=.~==.__~_____"'======:==~====== =
FeR Q)um USE CliLY
Applicant: [J Has Idenf:{ n.cation.
[] Does not ha."1:! identification.
[] Applicant d:cla:-€d that he/she did Dot WR..I1t General Relief e:nergency lodg~ but
would not fill out thi.s fot:m..
[J Applicant refused to sign this fom.
[] Emer-ge1CY hous~ was found tr.l on
- (District Staff Persons N.:>"';P & Tide) -- (u,-',,:e)
lit"'
"f'O 1. -1 ~
.
~.....
JV-c
/ Il -II-F/
, //70
3c!--oOL/-02-!' ~
.
.
.
PEPOP""
.
TO THr.
cr TY comTr L 0F 'I'nr; CI Tl:~ O~ SARTA ~fmiICA
OX T:IF H0'1ELCSS I ~ SN~T.n ~~ON"ICA
.
BY
ROBERT ~'. r1J.TRS, CI":Y F_""':'ORr~E'Y
Dr CEr~ BER 11) P4
.
.
.
.
..
.
r EPC'.:_'-'
TO THr'
CI IT C01j~TI L ('IF ':'~lE CI T'! OF SNJTA ~fmaCA
ON ':'~F HCt'El..,CSf3 It, Sl1l'JT?-. ~fO~ICA
-
BY
8.CBf:RT~' t'!l:TnS, CITY l>'T'~O'RUFY
Dr-cn'PER 1'J R4
...
-
.
--
...
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
,Page
II.
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..1
THE HOMELESS
. . . . .4
I I 1.
IV.
v
VI
A.
Why and How Many.
. . . . . . . . . .4
B. PsychologIcal and PhYSIological
Consequences of Homelessness
. .8
VAGR~NCY ~ND DISORDERLY CONDUCT. .
. . . . . . . . . . .. 15
~
HIstorIcal OvervIew
.15
B
Vagrancy
.. 16
C
The DemIse of Vagrancy and the RIse of
DIsorderly Conduct.... ......
.19
D
CalIfornla's DIsorderly Conduct Statute...
22
THE PUBLIC INEBRIATE: THE IMPACT OF
DECRIMINALIZ~TION
. . . . . . . . . .. 30
A
HIstorIcal OvervIew
. . .30
B PublIc InebrIatIon as DIsorderly Conduct....... 31
c
Sundance and Beyond.........
.35
D
De Facto Decrlmlnallzatlon and
PotentIal JudICIal DecrImInalIzatIon
. . . . .. 37
E.
The PublIc Inebr1ate Problem In
Santa MonIca ................
.40
PROSECUTION POLICIES.
43
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES IN CALIFOR~IA ........
46
A
Common Law.....
. . .46
B
CalIfornIa ....
.. .47
c
The DeclIne of CustodIal HospItalIzatIon
for the Mentally Ill..........
. 49
D. The Advent of Communlty Based Mental
Hea 1 th Dell very Systems.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
~
E The Lanterman-petr 1 s-Short Act................ .54
F LPS Act Custody and Commltment Problems........ .57
G The Short-Doyle Act and Community Mental
Health Programs and Facilities .................61
H. Dlstrlbutlon of Short-Doyle Community
Mental Health Funds 1n Santa Monica............ .64
I. LPS Act Placement and Treatment
Alternatives... ..........
VII.
. . . . . . .68
APPENDICES
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
77
AppendIX I:
AppendIX II:
Append 1 X II I :
AppendlX IV:
AppendlX V:
AppendiX VI:
AppendIX VII:
.-
-
Art1cle, Santa Monlca Even1ng
Outlook (November 22, 1984)
Bassuk, The Homelessness
Problem, SClentifIc AmerIcan,
Vol. 251, No.1, p. 40 (July,
1984)
Map Show1ng LocatIon of Homeless
Shelters and Domestic VIolence
Shelters In Los Angeles County
(1983-84)
DeclaratIons of Homeless Persons 1n
Los Angeles County
CIty of Santa MonIca Arrests for
PublIC Drunkeness, 1960-1983
Federal Bureau of InvestIgat1on,
UnIform CrIme Reports
C1ty Attorney Prosecution Pollcles
W1th Respect to Alcoholic PublIC
Inebriates, Homeless, and
IndIgents (November 26, 1984)
Appendlx VIII: Prosecutlon Summary (January 1,
1984 - November 15, 1984)
AppendiX IX: 1983-84 Short-Doyle Commun1ty
Mental Health FundIng Allocat1ons
for Coastal Mental Health Region
and Santa Monlca West Mental Health
DIstrlct
-
-
i1
AppendlX X:
Summary and Recommendations of the
American psychlatrlc Association on
The Homeless Mentally III (1984)
~ll
Human
creatures.
we care
INTRODUCTION
belngs are highly social
We depend, far more than
to acknowledge, on the
acceptance of others and on their
perceptions of us To a large extent,
precisely who we are IS reflected In
the attitudes and reactions other
people exhibit toward us.
Inclusion
In the Institutions and the fabrIc of
our society IS Integral to our sense
of substance, slgnlflcance,
well-being,
self-worth
To
be
Ignored, cast out, or excommunicated
IS, In some very real way, to cease to
be. I am not acknowledged, therefore,
I do not eXist
No experience was
more powerful or more Immediately
destructive than the exclusion and the
InvIsibility
homelessness.
Homelessness
that accompany
Hombs & Snyder,
In America: A Forced
M~rch to Nowhere 117 (1982).
It IS an uncontroverted fact that homelessness is both a
national problem and a natlonal disgrace The ranks of the
homeless are primarily comprised of the old, SIck, unemployed,
physically disabled, mentally dIsabled, displaced, and
1
dIsenfranchIsed.
However,
It would be both naIve and
deceptlve
to portray the ent1re homeless population as
harmless.
There is a dlstlnct minorIty sub-group among the
"new"
homeless
lnhabltlng
the streets who are young,
able-bodIed,
and
Jobless.
Observers
note that these
lndlVIduals prey on the older, defenseless homeless populatIon
and frequently engage In antlsoclal and crimInal behavIor. It
IS towards thIS crImInal element among the homeless that law
enforcement resources and energy should be focused. Recent
arrests
1n PalIsades Park of
IndIVIduals claImIng to be
tranSIents on felony narcotICS charges reflects a pollcy
deSIgned to deter crl~lnal conduct rather than punIsh status
alone
(See AppendIX I
An analYSIS of avaIlable statlstlcal data strongly
sUfports the conclUSlon that the problem of the homeless,
publIC
lnebrIate,
and IndIgent
In Santa MonIca IS not of
recent orIgIn nor attrIbutable to any change In munICIpal law
.-
-
enforcement or prosecutorlal POlICY.
Currently, Los Angeles County has the largest populatlon
of homeless people In the UnIted States
Santa MonIca due to
.
Its locatIon,
clImate,
accesSlblllty, beaches and numerous
public parks, has contInually attracted a sIgnIfIcant number
of homeless
IndIVIduals
The sltuatlon In Santa MonIca 15
-
-
exacerbated by the County's fallure to prOVIde adequate
shelter faCllltles and the lack of communIty mental health
faCllltles responslve to the needs of the mentally dIsordered
.
homeless.
2
.
.
.
In addItIon to publIC and socIal POlICY consideratIons,
the problem of homelessness In AmerIca IS Imbued wIth strong
moral and ethIcal consIderatIons. While great in number, the
homeless are polItically powerless They lack both fInanCIal
resources and meaningful access to governmental agenCIes WhIch
are essentIal to redress abuse and neglect. Moreover,
homeless persons are denied access to the vote In almost all
areas of the UnIted States SInce they generally lack a mailIng
address or other proof of reSIdence to qualIfy them to
regIster to vote
LOlterers, wanderers, the homeless, Indlgents and publlC
InebrIates have a long and palnful hlstory of engenderIng
hostIlIty wherever they may be. However, court deCIS10ns have
properly set clear restraInts upon courts, law enforcement
agenCIes and communItIes as to how they may respond to those
who are perceIved as SOCIal and economIC undeslrables
.
.
.
.
.
The
subJected
condItIon
conduct
tIme IS long past when an
to arrest and Incarceration
IndIVIdual may
for a status
be
or
rather than for engagIng In
crImInal
acts
or
The law Will not sanctIon munlclpalltles WhICh
.
attempt to banlsh the poor from thelr enVIrons. They cannot
InItIate "clean up the CIty" campaIgns In whIch undeSIrables
are rounded up and herded to JaIl Only the commISSIon of
speclflc crImInal acts wlll Justlfy arrest and IncarceratIon
of any CItIzen whether poor or rIch. PublIC outrage and
hysterla should never be a SubstItute for the rule of law
.
.
3
.
.
II. TH~ HOMELESS.
A Why and How Many
.
It IS more than dIsquIetIng to walk the streets of Santa
Monrca, and other cItIes across the country, and see the large
and ever-IncreasIng populatIon of homeless/destitute people.
.
What are the soclal forces behInd the appearance of so many
people on the street? How does one reconcIle thIS large and
hIghly vlslble populatIon WIth assurances from our natlonal
.
leaders that we have entered Into an era of unprecedented
prosperIty'
(H]omelessness appears to be a
.
SOClo-economlC condltlon WhICh may be
less the manlfestatlon of Indlvldual
shortcomIngs of homeless IndIVIduals,
.
and more the result of a troubled
economy
WhICh IS characterIzed by
structural
unemployment,
delndus-
.
trIallzatlon,
and
the
lack
of
low-lncome houslng.~1
.
.
.
1/ Ropers & Robertson, The IDner-Clty Homeless_of tos
Angeles: An EmpIrIcal Assessment 33 (1984).
4
.
.
Recent studles on the causes of homelessness in AmerIca
IndIcate there are presently more AmerIcans who are homeless
.
than at any tIme SInce the Great DepressIon.~/ The authors
CIte large scale governmental
reductIons in benefit programs
IncludIng the SocIal SecurIty DIsabllIty Insurance Program,
.
and the change In natIonal polley for dealIng WIth the
mentally Ill, as prlmary factors
In exacerbatIng the problem
of homelessness.
.
A. shortage of
low Income or affordable housIng IS
another SIgnIfIcant cause of homelessness.
The largest source
of hOUSIng for lndlvlduals on subSIstence level fIxed Incomes
.
IS SIngle room occupancy hotels and apartments.
Houslng of
th1s type, whlle never abundant,
IS rapIdly beIng elImInated
In numerous cltles.dl There 15 a dIrect correlatIon between
.
the dl~lnlshlng avallablllty of low-cost hOUSIng for SIngle
poor people and homelessness
The declIne In the number of
low-cost SIngle-roam-occupancy hotels and roomIng houses In
.
urban areas In the last decade IS conSIdered by experts to be
a
factor
contrIbutIng
to
homelessness
among
SIngle
.
.
~/ UnIted States Department of Houslng and Urban
Development. A. Report to the Secretary on the Homeless and
Emergency Shelters, WashIngton, DC, OffIce of Pollcy
Development and Research (1984); Bassuk, The Homelessness
Problem, SCIentlflc AmerIcan, Vol. 251, No 1, p. 40 (July
19841 contaIned in AppendIX II; Robertson, Ropers & Boyer,
Emergency Shelter For The Homeless in Los Angeles County,
U.C L.A. School of PublIC Health, BaSIC Shelter Research
ProJect (1984)
.
d/ InstJtute for Soclal Welfare Research, ~rIvate
LIDes/P~bllC Places: Homeless Adults on the Streets of New
York CIty 31-32 (1981)
5
.
.
1ndiv1duals..!/
Ret1rees rece1ving monthly socIal secur1ty
retirement benef1ts, and the physIcally and mentally d1sabled,
.
fInd 1t d1fflcult to locate and remaIn in hous1ng with1n theIr
avaIlable means.
The fact that
indiVIduals have Income does
not assure them shelter.
There are no indIcators Wh1Ch
.
demonstrate that the varlOUS soclal
forces responsIble for
homelessness wlll chapge 1n the near future.
Lo~ Angeles County has the largest homeless populatIon
.
1n the Unlted States.
A Departmer.t of HousIng and Urban
Development Report estImates the number of homeless In Los
Angeles to be between 31,300 and 33,800.2/ In addItlon to lts
.
present SIze, the homeless populatIon 1n Los Angeles County lS
1ncreaslng rapldly.~/
In 1983, the homeless populatIon of
Santa MonIca was estimated at between 750 - 1,000.2/
.
As of November 8, 1984, the County Department of PublIC
SOCIal SerVIces had contracts wlth only three hotels or motels
located on the Westslde to prOVIde emergency shelter.
These
.
hotels and motels have agreed to accept County lssued vouchers
.
~/ Un1ted States Department of Houslng and Urban
Development ~OIICY and Research On The Homeless,
WashIngton, D.C., OffIce of POlICY Development and Research
0984}.
.
2/ UnIted States Department of HOUSIng and Urban
Development A Report to the Secretary on the Homeless and
Emergency Shelters, Washlngton, D C., OffIce of POlICY
Development and Research (1964)
~/ Robertson, Ropers & Boyer, Emergency Shelter For The
Homeless In Los Angeles County, U.C.L.A. School of PublIC
Health, BaSIC Shelter Research ProJect 6 (1984).
.
2/ Westslde Shelter Coalltlon, Homeless on the W~stslde:
A POSItIon Pape~ (1983)
6
.
.
as lmmedlate payment for provldlng shelter to the homeless.
However,
there is an average of only one or two vacanCles
.
avallable on a daily baSIS In each of these establlshments.
Thus, on a dally baSIS, the County has a total of SIX rooms or
beds located on the Westslde provIdlng emergency shelter for
.
the homeless.
Once the avaIlable rooms on the WestsIde are
fIlled, the homeless are generally referred to contract hotels
In the central Clty area of Los Angeles
Many of these are
.
located 1n or around the Skld Row areas.
Bus tokens are
prOVIded for transportatlon.~/
As of the Sprlng of 1984,
there were only forty-eIght
.
shelters
1n Los Angeles County WhICh prOVIded beds for
overnlghL accomodatlon. WhIle 2,417 people can be housed In
these shelters, there are only 1906 beds.
(See AppendIx III
.
for Map showlng locatIons of shelters In Los Angeles County)
However,
259 of the 1906 total avaIlable beds are located 10
domestIC vlolence shelters.~/ There are only four shelters on
.
the Wests1de (IncludIng one domestlc VIolence shelter) WIth a
total of 270 avaIlable beds for homeless people each n1ght.
GIver the low number of avaIlable shelters and beds (33,800
.
homeless persons v.
only 1906 beds), homeless persons are
forced to seek shelter In "veh1cles (abandoned or theIr own),
.
~/ Telephone conversatIon With Mrs. Carraway of County
Department of SOCIal SerVIces, D.P.S S. OffIce, 10961 West
PICO Boulevard, November B, 19B4.
.
~/ Robertson, Ropers & Boyer, ~mergency Shelter For The
Homeless In Los Angeles County, BaSIC Shelter Research
ProJect, U.C.L.A. School of PublIC Health (1984).
7
.
.
brldges
park
and freeway overpasses,
benches, all nIght mOVIe
parking structures, alleys,
theatres, dumpsters and
.
trashbrns, and cardboard boxes."1Q/
To further exacerbate the sltuatlon,
27 shelters with
1337 beds refuse access to homeless Indlv1duals who are
.
mentally
drugs. .1.1/
Ill, phYSIcally handIcapped or users of alcohol or
ThIS leaves only 569 beds In the entIre county for
a segmen~ of the homeless populat1on who are least able to
surVIve on the streets On any gIven night, only 8.8\ of the
In Los Angeles County are provIded wlth temporary
.
homeless
shelter UI
.
B
and PhYSIologIcal Consequences of
.
Psychologlcal
Homelessness.
W~O are the homeless? What effect does homelessness
have
on
an
IndlVldual
from both a psychologIcal and
.
phYSiologIcal standpolnt?
AppendIX IV contalns
narratIves
excerpted
from
.
declaratIons of hornless men and women WhlCh were exhIb1ts 1n
the cases of Ross v Board of Supervlsors of the County of Los
Angeles, No C 501603 (Super Ct.Gal., flIed July 10, 1984),
Elsenhelm v. Board of Supervlsors of the County of Los
Angeles. No C 479453 (Super.Ct.Cal. j filed Dec. 20, 19B3).
.
lQ/ Id at 7 .
ll/ Id. at 39.
.
gl IsL at 61
B
.
.
Jon
declared:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Koteles,
of these homeless individuals,
one
ApproXImately fIve weeks ago I
arrIved In Los Angeles from Reno,
Nevada. I decIded to leave Reno after
lookIng for work there unsuccessfully
for at least a month. Employment IS
seasonal there' It's near ImposSIble
to fInd work In the Winter months.
Once the snow comes down over Donner
Pass the tourIst buses stop arrIvIng
from Sacramento and the caSInos and
restaurants cut back to three or four
day work weeks.
I am thIrty-four years old I
was an Infantryman In the VIetnam War
and served In South VIetnam In 1968
I volunteered for that serVIce
and durIng my duty earned a Vietnam
SerVlce Medal WIth two Bronze SerVIce
Stars,
an Armed Forces ExpedItIonary
Medal, and a Sharpshooter Badge WIth
AutomatIc RIfle Bar. I have papers
WIth me today to prove thIS and serve
as I D
I had no place to go. I walked
the streets for two days and two
9
.
nlghts trYIng to think what I should
do .
.
stay
myself
On December 13, 1983, I came for
the fIrst tIme to the Department of
SocIal SerVIces.
I'm trYIng to fInd a place to
until I can flnd work and help
I've been working and paYIng
for eIghteen years and now I
taxes
.
.
.
need a little help.
After waItIng almost three and a
half hours they called my name and I
got In to talk to a screener Today
IS Tuesday and she told me lt would be
at least FrIday before I could get a
hOUSIng voucher
I don't know where I'm g01ng to
stay at nIght untIl then The
screener asked me where I lIve and I
had nothIng to say.
Chances are that I'll end up
sleepIng on the beach for the next
three nIghts. It IS cold and wet out
there. I have no blankets and nowhere
else I can thInk that's any better.
AppendIx IV contaIns other representative examples of
the eXperIences of homeless Indlvlduals In Los Angeles County
.
.
.
.
.
10
.
.
These narratIves are sIgnIfIcant because In sImple and dIrect
language the homeless themselves explaIn why and how they
.
became homeless and the effect It has had on them.
TheIr
self-portrayals operate to shatter entrenched conventIonal
stereotypes
regardIng the background of
IndIVIduals who
.
comprISe the homeless populatIon
As two recognIzed experts
On the homeless questIon observed:
SeeIng and understanding "why"
.
people are homeless explaIns a great
deal
about
"who"
IS
homeless.
PersonalIzed Into names and faces,
.
ravaged by tIme,
anXIety,
and the
elements,
old
Images
lose thelr
credIbIlIty
We can then begln to
. glImpse IdentItIes and orIgIns We
qUlckly learn that, In realIty, It IS
th old, the SIck, the mentally 1 11 1
. the unemployed, the dIsabled, the
dIsplaced, and the dIsenfranchIsed who
populate our CIties' streets ld/
.
Homeless
IndlVlduals who frequently sleep outside where
they are exposed to the elements, suffer a hIgh degree of
phYSIcal
Illness and, In some Instances, death.
HypothermIa
.
IS the medIcal term for reduced core-body temperature.
More
cases of hypothermla are reported at Los Angeles County-U S.C.
.
ld/ Hombs & Snyder, HQmelessness In AmerIca:
March to Nowhere 4 (1982)
A Forced
11
.
.
Med1cal Center in Los Angeles County than at Bellevue Hospital
1n New York Clty.
Both hospltals serve a SImIlar pop~latlon.
.
Of the 100-125 caSes of hypothermla seen in County-U.S C.
Med1cal Center,
80 to 90 percent are from the ranks of the
homeless.
Exposure to temperatures of even 50 degrees
.
Farenhe1t, part1cularly for the elderly or In comblnatlon wlth
exposure to dampness, can result In hypothermIa.14/
.
[H]omeless patlents suffer from a
ViH 1ety of med1cal condltlons and
dIseases In a hlgher InCIdence than
patlents In a normal population who
have shelter. In partIcular, homeless
.
patIents
suffer
hypothermIa
from
aCCIdental
exposure,
have medlcal
.
consequences WhICh range from severe
braIn
damage,
renal
fallure,
pneumonia,
cardlac
arrest
and
.
ultlmately death
The fact
lS that
hypothermIa severely affects all of
the organ systems WhiCh can lead to
.
condltlons
caus1ng
death
(DeclaratIon of Gary Rapaport,
Speclallst In Emergency Med1clne,
.
Callfornla
Hospltal,
Los Angeles,
.
14/ Declaratlon of Wllllam Clem, M D , author1ty on
hypotherm1a 1n Los Angeles, exh1blt 1n E1s~nhelm v. ~oard of
Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, No. C 479453
(Super.Ct.Cal., flIed December 20, 1983).
12
.
.
Exhibit
in
Ross
V.
Board
of
SuperVisors
of the Countv of ~os
.
Angeles, No. C 501603 (Super.Ct.Cal.,
filed July 10, 1984.
Other common phYSlolog1cal consequences of homelessness
.
are resplratory disorders, dependent edema, status ulcers, and
trauma sustaIned from assaults and robber1es.
Even when
homeless
IndlVlduals f1nd temporary shelter
1n mlss1ons,
.
condItIons are such that many sleep upright on benches and
chaIrs
As a result, these 1nd1vlduals become suscept1ble to
cellulltlS and lymphong1t1s,
two severe t1ssue 1nfectIons,
.
Wh1Ch
can
eventually
result 1n gangrene and poss1ble
amput.atlon.l..a/
The
psychologlcal
and
emot1onal repercuss10ns of
.
homelessness are as severe and deb1lItatlng as some of the
phYS1ologlcal
consequences.
KeVIn Flynn, Ph.D, a clln1cal
psychologIst who worked 1n the Los Angeles Skld Row area for
.
several years, and former DIrector of the Los Angeles Skid Row
ProJect of the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health,
observed
.
[1]ndIVIduals WIthout shelter,
partIcularly
dur1ng
the
cold
.season,
suffer
from high
.
levels
of
anx1ety,
depreSS1on,
.
12/ Declaration of Rosemary OcchIogrosso, R.N., Nurse
Practltloner, Exh1bIt 1n Ross v. ~oard of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles, No. C 501603 (Super.Ct.Cal , filed
July 10, 1984)
13
.
.
wIthdrawal, tearfulness, hopelessness,
disorIentation,
reduced
levels of
.
cognItIve functioning, hyperalertness,
sleep
dIsturbance,
exhaustIon and
psychophysIological dIsorders.
.
In general the lack of proper,
reasonably safe shelter contrIbutes to
the psychological deterIoratIon of
.
relatIvely
normal
IndIVIduals and
exacerbates the mental dIsorders In
those
IndIVIduals wIth a hIstory of
.
psychIatrIc dIsturbance.
ExhIbIt ln,
Ross v.
Board of SuperVIsors of the
County of Los Angeles, No C 501603
.
(Super.Ct.Cal., flIed July 10, 1984).
A slgnlflcant percentage of homeless people have an
astoundIngly hIgh
"InCIdence of diagnosable mental Illness:
.
psychoses, chronlC alcoholIsm and character dIsorders "16/
.
.
.
12/ Bassuk, The Homelessness Problem, SCientifIC
AmerIcan, Vol. 251, No 1, P 40 (July 1984).
14
.
.
I I 1.
V~GRANCY AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
.
EssentIally
the notIon persists
that an IndIvIdual lIvIng In a land in
whIch the protectIon of CIVIl rIghts
.
IS a prImary obJective of government
may stIll be punIshed as a crImInal by
vIrtue of personal condItIon,
or of
.
belongIng to a partIcular class.17/
HIstorical OverVIew
A
.
A meanIngful
and comprehenslve understandIng of the
pervaSIve
and
seemIngly
tImeless problem of vagrancy,
homelessness,
and public InebrIatIon IS ImpOSSIble wIthout an
.
hIstorIcal perspectIve.
There are three prImary reasons for understandIng the
hIstorIcal baSIS establIshIng and embelllshlng crimes of
.
status or personal condItIon.
FIrst, hIstory helps to defIne
the context and scope of the crImes beIng conSIdered
Second,
the ceurts
"tend to rely on past practIce to JustIfy gIVIng
.
unique treatment to the constItutIonal and procedural problems
WhICh arIse out of these crlmes."jJ~/
ThIrd, hIstory is
crit1cal to arrIVIng at the underlYlng legislatIve purpose
.
~/ Sherry, Vagrants, Rog~es, and Vagabonds - Old
Concepts In Need of ReVISIon, 48 Cal. L Rev 557, 55B
(1960)
.
il/ Lacey, Vagrancy and Other Cr,lmes of Personal
Con d 1 t lon, 66 H a r v. L. Re v. 120 3, 1 204 (1 933 ) .
15
.
.
related to these statutory crimes, wlthout which evaluation of
these statutes and thelr uses would be d1ff1cult.
.
In addltion,
hlstorlcal perspective is essentIal to
pIerce the w1despread 19norance and false assumpt10ns WhlCh
members of the general pUblIc hold and voclferously articulate
.
as to the eXlstence, purpose and enforcement of "laws" to
control socIal and economIC undeslrables.
.
B
Vagrancy
Modern day statutes related to vagrancy and dlsorderly
conduct fInd theIr orIgIns
1n England as early as the
.
Fourteenth Century
"DespIte the drastlc change 1n SOCIal and
economIC condltlons that has Intervened,
there 1S str1k1ng
SlmIlarIty between the POlICY ObJectIves of modern vagrancy
.
law admi"'lstratIon and of the pre-El1zabethan Parl1aments."19/
The
Statutes
of Laborers
In 1349-51 embodIed an
anti-mIgratory POlICY engendered by the end of feudalIsm and
.
the maSSIve depopulatIon result1ng from the Black Death.lQ/
It became unlawful to refuse an offer of work and to flee from
one county to another to aVOId work offers
Persons were
.
prOhIbIted from glv1ng alms to able-bod1ed beggars who refused
to work 21/
In 1414,
a statute was enacted WhICh gave
.
~/ Foote, Ypgrancy-Type Law and Its Admlnlstratlon,
104 U. PaL Re v. 603, 6 1 5 (1 956 )
.
1Q/ 25 Edw 3, c. 7 (1350-51) For a summary of these
statutes, see 3 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of
England 203, 206 (1883).
ll/ 23 Edw 3 J c. 7 (1349).
16
.
.
"Justices
vagrants.
of
the
peace
the summary power to punish
."..f....f/
.
The original statutes proved unworkable SInce decllnlng
economic conditions continued to force Single men as well as
families to continually roam the roads of England seeking
employment. In the Sixteenth Century during the reign of
ElIzabeth I, the orIgInal vagrancy laws were used as a
criminal supplement to the Ellzabethan poor laws.
These condItions changed the
emphasIs of the anti-migratory poliCY
from requIred work at a fixed abode to
protection of the countryside against
the financial burden, nUisance, and
potential crlmlnallty of the vagrant
.
.
.
.
class.
The ban upon migration became
.
a preventatIve to help a parish, which
had the responslblllty of providing
relief for local needy reSidents, from
being burdened wIth the annovance and
economic liability of foreign oaupers
and Idlers. Foote, Vagrancy-Type Law
and Its AdmInIstration, 104 U Pa L
Rev. 603, 615 (1956)(emphasls added)
It was the ElIzabethan vagrancy laws, both In spirIt and
language, which were brought to the UnIted States durIng
colonIal times. "Paupers" and "vagabonds" were excepted from
.
.
.
.f.l/ 2 Hen. 5, C 4 (1414).
17
.
.
the prlvlleges and lmmunItles clause of the ArtIcles of
ConfederatIon and from Its guarantee of
"free Ingress and
.
egress to and from any other state."n/ ElIzabethan concepts
of socIal control, manlfested In increasingly severe vagrancy
laws,
served as the basIs for almost every vagrancy statute
.
enacted In the UnIted States
The orIgInal vagrancy law enacted In CalifornIa in 1855
was a dIrect descendant of the ElIzabethan models adopted In
.
the
orlglna1
colonIal
states.24/
CalIfornIa's origInal
vagrancy statute, WIth very minor amendments, remaIned the law
In thIs state for one hundred five
(105) years untIl It was
.
repealed In 1960 and reFlaced WIth the modern Penal Code
prOVIsIons dealIng With dIsorderly conduct
People v. Weger,
251 Cal. App. 2d 584, 59 Cal.Rptr
661 (1967)
.
The orlglna1 vagrancy statutes operatIve In Callfornla
and almost every other state rested upon one rIgld fundamental
concept.
They were deSIgned and enforced so as to cfImInallze
.
and punIsh status alone, I.e., kInds of persons such as the
poor, homeless,
unemployed, publIC
inebriates,
and other
hIghly VISible elements of SOCIety whose Ilfestyle was deemed
.
Inapproprlate by the general publIC, polIce, and the courts.
23/ Foote, Vagrancy-Type Law and Its AdmInistratIon,
104 U Pa L Rev. 603, 616 (1956)
.
.
~/ The prototype for the 1872 verSIon (Cal Stat. 1855,
ch 175, P 217, as amended by Cal. Stat. 1863, ch. 525, P
770) contalned an exceptIon for IndIans but lImIted It to
"DIgger IndIans." It also contaIned a provlslon, Wisely
dropped In 1872, that persons "commonly known as 'Greasers' or
the Issue of SpanIsh and IndIan blood who are vagrants and who
go armed may be punished"
18
.
.
For over a century, the crime of vagrancy was permitted
to eXIst without the lndlspensable elements of a crlme. Act
.
plus
Intent were not requIred to impose criminal sanctIons.
IronIcally, England, the "mother" of vagrancy law, amended Its
Vagrancy Act 1n 1824 so as to place "almost exclusive emphasIs
.
on conduct and did not purport to attach crmInallty to status
alone. "12/
The
long
term vltallty of anachronIstic vagrancy
.
stat~tes With respect to theIr abIlIty to WIthstand both legal
challenge and WIdespread crltlclsm by respected commentators
speaks loudly as to thelr effIcacy as an lnstrument of social
.
control.
The fact that these statutes were aberratIons WithIn
the speclflc framework of crImInal law and general prlncIples
of constItutional
law did nothIng to deter theIr wldespread
.
pcpularlty
wlth the general publiC and law enforcement
agenC1es
as
an effectlve deVIce to control unpopular,
SUSplClOUS, and unacceptable segments of our socIety
.
C. The DemIse of Vagrancy and th~ Rlse of Dlsorderly
Conduct
.
DurIng
the DepressIon,
twenty-seven states enacted
statutes des1gned to hInder or bar the entry of destltute
mlgratory people lnto thelr respectlve Jurlsdlctlons.~/ In
.
~/ Sherry, Vagrants~ Rogues~ and Vagabonds - Old
Concepts ln Need of ReVISIon, 48 Cal. L Rev 557, 564
(1960)
.
26/ Foote, Vagrancy-Type Law and Its AdmlnIstratlon,
104 U. P a. L Rev. 603, 616 (1956).
19
.
.
.
Edwards v. CalifornIa, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), these "national"
vagrancy laws were declared unconstItutIonal by the UnIted
States Supreme Court as an InfrIngement on the right to
travel. "Whatever may have been the notIon then prevaIlIng,
we do not thInk that It WIll now be serIously contended that
because a person IS wIthout employment and wIthout funds he
constItutes a 'moral pestIlence' Poverty and ImmoralIty are
not synonymous ,. 1..2-. at 163, n. 5
NotwIthstandIng thIs decIsIon, another thIrty-one (31)
years would pass before the HIgh Court would elImInate
munIclpal vagrancy laws which penalIzed status rather than
conduct.
.
.
.
The Clty of JacksonvIlle
cut from the same cloth
FlorIda's vagrancy ordInance
as the claSSIC ElIzabethan
was
.
vagrancy statutes CrimInal penaltIes were Imposed upon a
range of persons Including rogues and vagabonds, dIssolute
persons who go about begglng, habItual loafers, and persons
able to work but habltually lIVIng off theIr WIves and mInor
chIldren. The UnIted States Supreme Court held the ordInance
u~constltutlonal as beIng vOld for vagueness because It "falls
to gIve a person of ordlnary IntellIgence faIr notIce that hIS
contemplated conduct IS forbIdden by the statute and
because It encourages arbItrary and erratIC arrests and
convIctIons" Papachrlstou v. CIty of JacksonVIlle, 405 U 5
156, 161 (1972) In a unanImous deCISIon, the Court noted
that the net of the vagrancy statutes fell upon "poor people,
nonconformIsts, dIssenters, Idlers (who) may be required to
.
.
.
.
20
.
-
-
comport
themselves
according
to
the lifestyle deemed
appropriate by the Jacksonville polIce and the courts." Jd
...
-
at 170.
In practlcal terms the Court forthrightly condemned
vagrancy laws as a device utilized almost exclusively for
.
arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement.
It furnlshes a convenient tool
for
,. ha rsh
and
dlscrlmlnatory
.
enforcement
by
local
prosecuting
offlclals,
agalnst particular groups
deemed
to
merit
their
.
dlspleasure.
It results
111 a
regime In WhlCh the poor and the
unpopular are perm1tted to stand on a
.
pUblIC sidewalk only at the whim of
any police officer ,-
Id at 170.
The Court's opinion stressed that vagrancy laws were
.
Inlmlcal to the rule of law'
Vagrancy
laws
of
the
Jack.sonvllle
type
teach that the
.
scales
of
JustIce are so tIpped
even-handed administration of the law
IS not possible
The rule of law,
.
evenly applIed to minorIties as well
as maJorities, to the poor as well as
the rich IS the great mUCilage that
.
holds socIety together. ~ at 171.
21
.
.
.
For those JurIsdIctIons which had contInued to hold fast
to "status" type vagrancy statutes, the pa~achrlstou decIsIon
mandated a change to statutes which defIned crimInalIty In
terms of acts or conduct
.
D
California's Dlsorderlv Conduct Statute
Twelve years before the UnIted States Supreme Court
decIded
.
unanImous
Papachrlstou, the CalIfornIa Supreme
deCiSion declared unconstItutIonal
Court
In a
a
sectIon of
CalIfornIa's vagrancy statute, whIch categorIzed a common
dlunk as a vagrant, on the grounds that It was vague,
.
uncertaIn,
~ewber~,
and Incapable
53 Cal. 2d 766,
of
unIform enforcement. In
re
350 P.2d 116, 3 Cal. Rptr
364
(1960)
.
The Newbern deCISIon was ObVIOUSly read
In the state
.
LegIslature WhICh repealed the 106 year old vagrancy statute
and replaced It WIth a dIsorderly conduct statute. 1961 Cal
Stats ch 560 As rewrItten, Penal Code SectIon 647, "whIle
retaIning much of the substance of the old, elther supplIes or
further modlfles the specIfIC conduct elements of the
.
offenses,
so that all IndIVIdual mIsdemeanors are now defIned
In terms of acts Instead of status II
22 Cal. Jur 2d Section
.
3057 (1975)
Penal Code SectIon 647 now provIdes:
.
22
.
.
.
f "7. [DIIonIerly COIIdKt
Every penotI who cxvnm,ts any rI the folJowma acts II JWlty 01
duorderly cooduct, . DUSdcmeanor
(a) Who soltau anyone to cngqe m or who enpaes m lewd or
dJssolute conduct m any pubbc p1k:e or in any place open to the
pubhc or ~posed to pubbc YleW
(b) Who sohcJts or wbo cnPles m any act of proaatubon As 11I<<I m
tIm IUbdJV1SlOD, "promruQon" mc:ludes any lewd act bctweco perIOaI
for money or other consIderanon
(c) Who accosts other persons lD any pubbc place or lD any place
opeD to the pubhc fer the purpose of beggIng or SOhC1tlDl alms
(d) Who lolters In or about any tOOet open to the pubbc for the
purpose of enpgml m or sohcltlllS any lewd or lasc1Vlous or any
un]a",fu] act
(e) Who 100ten or wanden upon the streets or from place Ie place
WIthout apparent reason or busl1les.5 and who refuses to ldennfy
himself and to account for hIs presence when requested by any peace
oftice1' so to do, If the surroundmg CU'CUD1Stances are such as to
mdIcate to a reasonable person that the pubbc safety de-rn-n<u sucl1
Identification
(I) Who LS found m any pubhc place under the mftuenc:e of II1toXJc:at-
inS hquor. any druS, toluene. any substance defined as . pouon m
Scheclule 0 of Sechon 4160 of tbe BuslnC5S and ProfCSSJol's Code. or
any combUJanon of any mtoXlcanng liquor, drug. toluene, or any such
polSOn. In such a condInon that be 15 unable to eJ.erc15e care for hu
own safety or the safety of others. or by reason of tus bemg under the
mftuence of mtoXlcatmg liquor. any drug. toluene., any substance
defined as a polSOn m Schedule 0 of Sectlon 4160 of the Busmess and
Profe5$lons Code, or any combmanon of any IDtoXlC&tmg hquo:,
drug. toluene., or any such poISOD. mterims WIth or obstr\lCtS or
pre...ent5 tbe fiw use of any street, udcwalk., or other pubhc way
un When . person baa VIOI.t"", IUbdtVlllOft (f) m thJs IoI!IctlOD. . peace
IlIicer. If be 1$ reasonably MHc to do 10, shall r'1I~ the penon. or
cause hnn to be plll~. an ClVLI protectt...e CUItOdy Sucb person shall
be: taken to . facWt}, dcSIpated punuant 10 SectJon 5170 of the
Welfare and Instnuuons Code, for the 72-bo'U' treatment and evalua.
bon of mebnates A peace ofticer DJa) place . person an a\o'll
protecu...e custody W'lth that kInd and degree of force wblcb would be
1a~1u.I were be el'c:ctlDg an arrest for I DUSdemc:anor WIthout .
warrant No penon ....ho has been placed In C1vU protecnve custod)'
IhalI thereafter be subject to any cnJD1J14.I prosecutl~'D or Juvaule
coun proceedl1lg based on the facts 11\'111& me to .....ch placement
11us lubdlVlSJOn .....11 not apply to the folJowmg per'SODS
(]) An}' person ..-ho IS under the m1Iucncc of any drug. or under the
combmed mfluencc of mtoXlcatlng hquor and any drug
(2) An) person who I peace oftice1' has probable cause to believe bas
COIJ1I]1!tted an)' felon}. or wbo has C('Mmlned an)' 11"~emeanor an
addItJon to lubdlVlSJon <0 of tlus sec:tlon
(3) Any perwn who a ~~ officer ID load faith believes will attempt
escape or will be WlJ"easonably cbfticuh for mecbc:&l penormel CO
control
(g) ""'ho lonen. pro~]s, or wanden upon the pnvate propeny of
another, an the Il1ghmme. Wlthout vwble Of lawful bn..'nf'SS WIth the
owner or oc:cupant thereof
(h) Who, wlule lonmlli, prowhng. or wandcnng upon the pnvate
property of another, an the DJghtume. peds m the door or WU1dow of
any mbabned bwldmg or 1tJUctur't located thereon. WIthout VISlble or
lawful bU$1JJCS5 WIth Lhe owner or occupant thereof
(I) Who lodges m aD)' bwldm&. stnactu.re, veIuclc. or place., whether
pubhc or pnvate, WIthout the pcnIUI&1OII of the owner or penon
entItled to the posseIIlOO or HI control thereof ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r, ~
.:. ~.
.
.
NotwIthstanding
from status to
the Legislature's laudable
acts as the determInatIve
attempt to
factor In
move
.
defInIng crImInalIty, key prOVIsIons of the dIsorderly conduct
statute have not fared well in the courts.
.
1.
SubdiVISIon
( a ),
"SOlicItIng or Enaaaina In
.
Lewd or Dlssolute COnduct In a PublIC Place."
In 1979, the Callfornla Supreme Court recognlzed that
Penal Code SectIon 647(aJ was a "lIneal desCendant of the
archalc vag~ancy statutes which were deSIgnedly drafted to
grant polIce and prosecutors a vague and standardless
dlscretlon" Pryor v. Munlclpal Court for Los Angeles County,
.
.
25 Cal
(1979).
WIthout
3d 238: 248, 599 P.2d 636, 158 Cal. Rptr. 330, 33~
preCIse
defInItIon
the terms
"lewd"
and
.
"dIssolute" measure crImInalIty by communIty or even
IndIVIdual notIons of what 15 dIstasteful behavIor. In order
to aVOId declarIng thIS subd1vlslon unconstItutIonally vagueJ
the California Supreme Court severely lImIted the scope of
prohIbIted behaVIor WIthIn the purVIew of the subdIVISIon.
(W]e construe that sectIon to prohIbIt
only the Sollcltatlon or commISSIon of
conduct In a publIC place or one open
to the publIC or exposed to publIC
VIew, whIch lnvolves the touchlng of
the genltals, buttocks, or female
breast, for purposes of sexual
.
.
.
24
.
.
.
arousal, g~atlflcatlon, annoyance o~
offense, by a person who knows or
should know of the presence of persons
who may be offended by the conduct.
Jd. at 244, 599 P.2d at 249, 158 Cal.
Rptr. at 332 (emphasIs added)
.
.
2 $,l,lbdlVlSIon (c), "Beqcllnq or SolIcItIng Alms"
There appears to be a prevalent mIsconceptIon as to what
conduct IS prohIbIted by Penal Code SectIon 647(c) ThiS
SeetIor makes
It a mIsdemeanor for one "[w)ho accosts other
.
persons
for the
In any publIC place or In any place open to the publlC
purpose of beggIng or solIcitIng alms.n There IS a
.
wIde range of noncrlmlnal conduct WhICh IS permISSIble by an
Indlvldual seek1ng assIstance
It has never been a crImInal offense In thIS state even
under the repealed vagrancy statute to seek aSsIstance when
one IS In genUIne need "The statute makes It an offense for
.
a healthy beggar to SOlICIt alms as a bUSIness.
For one to
ask aSsIstance on one occaSIon does not make hlm a vagrant"
.
People v Denby, lOB Cal, 54, 40 P. 1051 (1895).
Penal Code Section 647(c) IS not vIolated by a person
merely receIVIng donatIons One "who merely SIts or stands by
the waYSIde" IS nOL "accostIng" wIthIn the meanIng of thIS
Sectlon glmer v MunICIpal Court for the Oakland-PIedmont
.
.
JudICIal DIstrIct,
445,448 (1976J.
55 Cal. App. 3d 263, 267, 127 Cal. Rptr
25
.
.
.
It IS the current POlICY of the Santa MonIca CIty
Attorney's OffIce to only prosecute indIvIduals who request
aSsIstance and who also use assaultlve or threatening conduct.
It is dIffIcult
to
distInguIsh a
homeless person
request
WhICh
for flnanclal
I S made in a
assIstance by
a
.
nonthreaten1ng manner from other situatIons where money 1S
requested by IndIVIduals or organ1zatlons
On a seasonal
.
baSIS) representatives of the Salvatlon Army sollclt or beg
for alms Passengers at a1rports are frequently approached by
members of sects and rel1glous groups for flnancIal
aSSIstance PolIt1cal contrlbut1ons are sollclted from the
publIC In a varIety of sltuat10ns
.
3
SubdlvIS10n
( d) ,
"LoiterIng About A PublIC
.
TOIlet."
Conduct pun1shable under thIS subdIVIsIon 1S not mere
lOIterIng It must be l01terlng for a lewd and laSCIVIoUS
.
purpose
However, In order to meet constItutIonal standards,
the
for
"lewd
standards applIed
or dlssolute"
by Pryor under subdIvlslon 647(a)
must also be applled to "le\old or
S.P.P , 115 Cal. App 3d Supp 12,
same
.
laSCIVIOUS" people V
170 Cal Rptr. 478 (1980)
.
4 SubdIVISIon (el t "LOiterIng and WanderHlo W1th
Refusal to IdentIfy Oneself."
By VIrtue of both state and federal court deCIsions thIS
subdIvlslon has essentIally been negated In Its entlrety
.
26
.
.
"[L]oIterIng and wanderIng upon the streets or from place to
place wIthout apparent reason or busIness" wIthout addItional
.
conduct has never been punishable as a crime under thIs
subd1V1sIon
People v. Weger1 251 Cal.
App. 2d 584, 59 Cal.
Rptr. 6611 667 (1967).
.
The requIrement that lOIterers and wanderers ldentlfy
themselves
In
cIrcumstances WhICh would Indlcate to a
reasonable
person
that the publIC safety demands such
.
IdentIflcatlon was declared unconstitutIonal by the United
States Supre~e Court
Kolender v Lawson,
75 L Ed 2d 903,
911 (19&3)
.
.:;
.,., .
SubdiVISIons
( f )
and
(f f)
"PublIC
InebrIatIon ,.
.
These sectIons are discussed In Part IV Infra.
6
5ubdlVlslons
( g)
and
( h) I
"NIqht-tlme
.
ProwlIng, PeepIng"
These
two
subdiViSions
punish speclflc nIghttIme
actIVIty on prIvate property
There have been no sIgnIficant
.
11mltat.lons
Imposed by the courts WIth regard to the conduct
proscribed by these subdlV1Slons.
.
.
27
.
.
7 . Subd I v 1 S 1 on (I), II Lodg I ng . II
As well documented studIes IndIcate, there are only
.
suff1Clent emergency overn1ght shelters In Los Angeles County
to house 10% of the est1mated 33,000 homeless indiVIduals
currently 1n the County.Z2/ V1ewed fram anothe~ perspectIve,
.
on any gIven nIght 90% of the homeless indIvIduals In Los
Angeles County are wlthout shelter
TheIr only optIon 15 to
choose shelter WhICh WIll prOVIde a measure of safety from
.
physIcal attack as well as protectlon from the elements.
Such
shelter
takes the forms of vehIcles, doo~ways,
freeway
overpasses, parks, publlC beaches,
and a varlety of other
.
locatIons necessary for surVIval
In a recent Los Angeles County MunICIpal Court case, the
court,
after reVIeWIng the statIst1cal data on the large
.
number of homeless IndIVIduals In Los Angeles County and lack
of emergency shelters, recognIzed "neceSSIty" as a defense to
an alleged VIolatIon of a Los Angeles County ordInance
.
prohIbItIng sleeplng
In vehIcles parked on publIC streets
PeoDle v. BenJam1n, No 276842
(Munl Ct. Cal., deCIded June
8, 19841.
.
The defense of neceSSIty eXIsts as a part of CalIfornIa
CrImInal
law
1 WItkIn, Cal CrImes (19631 Defences, SectIon
248.
People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal. App. 3d B23, 11B Cal. Rptr
.
110
(19743.
A central element of the defense Involves the
chOIce of alternatIves whereby a crImInal defendant acts to
.
27/ Robertson, Ropers & Boyer, Emergency Shelter For The
Ho~eles5 In Los Angeles County, BaSIC Shelter Research
ProJect, U C L.A. School of PubllC Health (1984).
28
.
.
.
avold a greater harm by engag1ng In an act proscrlb~d by law.
The classlC example lS the theft of food to avoId starvat10n
so long as no other alternat1ves were open to the defendant.
G1ven the stat1st1cal d1sparlty between the number of
homeless compared w1th avaIlable shelter facilItIes, It IS the
oplnlon of the Santa MonIca CIty Attorney's OffIce that
neceSSIty Will generally be recognIzed as a defense to a
SIgnIfIcant number of alleged VIolatIons of thIS subdIVISIon.
For the same reason, neceSSIty IS also a strong defense to
alleged VIolatIons of SectIon 4202a of the Santa MonIca
Munlclpal Code Wh1Ch prohIbIts sleepIng In parks. Sleep1ng In
a putIle park 1S the only Viable optIon for shelter for a
SIgnIfIcant number of homeless IndIVIduals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
.
.
IV.
THE
PUBLIC
INEBRIATE:
THE
IMPACT
OF
DECRIMINALIZATION.
.
A. HIstorIcal OvervIew.
At common law there was no recognIzed crImInal offense
.
for beIng a common drunk or publIC InebrIate.
England by
statute In 1879 made beIng a "habItual drunkard" a crIme
(Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879, 42 & 43 Viet, c 19, Section
.
3 )
In CalIfornIa SInce 1872, a common drunkard was deemed
to be a vagrant and therefore a crlmlnal.28/ Along WIth other
.
SUbdIVISIons of the vagrancy statute, the common drunkard
prOVISIon was repealed by the LegIslature In 1960
However,
Just prIor to the LegIslature's actIon, the CalIfornia Supreme
.
Court declared the common drunkard prOVISIon unconstItutIonal
as beIng VOId for vagueness
In re Newbern, 53 Cal. 2d 786,
796, 350 P 2d 116, 123, 3 Cal. Rptr. 364, 371 (1960)
.
PrIor to the repeal of the Penal Code vagrancy statute
In 1960,
It
IS noteworthy that prosecutIon fOf
"common
drunkard" was under Penal Code SectIon 647) subdIVISIon 11,
.
while prosecutIon for
"IntOXIcation In publIC" was under a
varIety of local ordinances
.
.
28/ "Every common drunkard IS a vagrant and IS
punishable by a fIne not exceedIng fIve hundred dollars ($500)
or by ImprIsonment In the county )all not exceedIng SIX months
or both such fIne and ImprIsonment." Cal. Penal Code Sec.
647(11) (West 1872) (repealed 1960).
30
.
.
.
B. PublIC InebrIation as Disorderly Conduct.
The public vagrancy statute repealed by the Legislature
In 1960 was replaced by current Penal Code Section 647. By
enactIng Penal Code Section 647(f) 1n 1960, the state
manlfested a clear Intent to preempt the fIeld. Thus, local
muniCipalitIes have been prohIbited from prosecuting publlc
Inebr1ates under local ord1nances for beIng Intoxlcated In
publlC as they had been able to do under the repealed vagrancy
statute. See People v Lopez, 59 Cal.2d 653, 381 P.2d 637, 30
Cal. Rptr. 813 (1960).
Replaclng the vague "common drunkardP standard were
multIple elements under SectIon 647(f) WhIch had to be
satisfied before an Intoxicated IndIvidual could be said to
.
.
.
have
commItted the crIme of disorderly conduct.
These
.
elements are.
( 1 }
under the Influence; (2)
In a publlC
.
place; and (3) eIther In such a conditlon that he IS unable
to exerCise care for hIS safety or the safety of others or by
reason of hIS belng under the Influence interferes with or
obstructs or prevents the free use of a publIC street,
SIdewalk or other publIC way.
.
In 1971,
the LegIslature added SectIon 647(ff) gIVing
.
police offIcers the optlon of plaCing persons who had VIolated
SectIon 647(f) ln CIVIl protective custody and divertIng them
to lIcensed detOXIfIcatIon faCIlItIes for treatment and
evaluatIon for 72 hours.
Before SectIon 647(ff) was adopted by the LegIslature,
It underwent two SIgnIfIcant amendments.
.
31
.
.
.
As flrst introduced, It would
have mandated removal of the publIC
inebrlate from the penal system and
requlred countIes to establish
detoxlflcatIon facllltles to whlch the
lnebrlates would have been dIverted
.
After
strong
Opposltlon from the
.
Callfornla Peace Offlcers AssOclatlon)
as well as the Dlstrlct Attorneys' and
Coun ty Counse 1 s I Assoc 1 at 1 ons , the
bIll was amended to leave the crlmlnal
. procedure Intact Even If the
lnebrlates had commlted no other
c r 1 me , nor posed any danger to the
. safety of medIcal personnel, the bill
still would have requlred lnebrlates
1n
lts flnal
lmmedlately to clvil
faCIlItIes. The blll
form had the strong
.
to be taken
detoxlflcatlon
flavor
of compromlse.
there was no
Also,
mandate nor
.
Slnce
.
approprlatlon to countles to establ1sh
detoxlflcatlon facllltles, the law
could seemIngly be exercised largely
at the dIscretIon of the pollce and
countIes.
Stevens, DecrImlna11zatlon
.
and Bevond'
PubllC Inebr1ty 1n Los
32
.
.
Angeles County, 3 WhIttIer L. Rev. 55,
69 (1981).
.
Thus, by 1973,
law enforcement had three optIons In
dealIng wlth the publIC InebrIate.
FIrst, the inebrIate could
be arrested, booked,
and Jalled under Penal Code SectIon
.
647(f)
Second, If the qualIfIcatIons set forth ln Penal Code
SectIon 647(ff) were met, the InebrIate could be taken Into
CIVll
Frotect1ve custody and transported to a lIcensed
.
detoxlflcatlon faCIlIty
Reallstlcally, thIS has never been a
vIable optIon due to eIther the nonexlstence of lIcensed
aecoxlflcatlon centers In many areas, or where they do eXIst,
.
roow IS seldom avaIlable
ThIrd,
pursuant to Penal Code
Sectlon 849(b)(2),
the InebrIate could be taken to JaIl and
released
.
Cal.
3d 943,
947-948, 123 Cal.
See People v Longwlll, 14
Rptr 297, 299-300 (1975);
(kIcked-out) when sober
.
Moss, Taklng the PublIC InebrIate Out of Callfornla's CrImInal
JustIce System, 7 U C. DaVIS L Rev 539 (1974).
By 1974, the magnItude of the publlC lnebrlate problem
had reached such proportlons that the Callfornla Senate Select
CommIttee on Law RelatIng to AlcoholIC Beverages Issued a four
volume FInal Report follOWIng publlC hearlngs held ln 1973.
Callfornla Senate Select Comm on Laws RelatIng to AlcohollC
Beverages, FInal Report 43 (1974).
.
.
Among
concluded:
Its recommendatlons and flndlngs, the Committee
TestImony
by
varIOUS
law
.
enforcement offiCIals
IndIcates that
33
.
.
.
as much as 40 percent of the time of
local law enforcement offIcers IS
spent In arrestingJ processlngJ and
prosecutIng common drunks.
There IS no eVIdence to Indicate
that thIS practice serves any useful
publIC purpose
The CommIttee recommends that
the crIme of common drunkeness be
.
.
elImInated from the statutes.
There
.
are ample provIsIons In the law for
handlIng people under the Influence of
alcohol
If they commIt another crIme.
.
Id at 17.
The CommIttee proposed that leglslatlon be Introduced
ImpOSIng eXCIse taxes on alcoholIC beverages These taxes
would be dIstrIbuted to cltles and countles for the exclUSIve
purpose of establishIng and operatIng local alcoholIc
treatment centers In thIS way, no burden would be placed on
local taxpayers
In 1975, Senate BIll 204 was Introduced Into the
LegIslature whIch embodIed the CommIttee's alcohol eXCIse tax
proposal almost In Its entIrety. At the same tIme Senate BIll
329 was lotroduced to repeal the publIC inebrIate statutes, to
reqUIre each county to prOVIde ciVil detoxifIcation
faCIlitIes, and to approprIate $20,050,000 for traInIng
personnel and fundIng faCIlItIes. Stevens, Decrlmlnallzation
.
.
.
.
34
.
.
.
and Bevond: PublIC Inebrltv ~n ~os Angele$ CQ~ntv, 3 WhIttIer
L Rev. 55, 72 (1981).
Even though these bIlls were opposed by the alcoholIc
beverage Industry, they passed both houses of the Leg1slature.
However, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed both bills, and the
LegIslature was unable to overrIde the veto. Subsequent
legIslatIve efforts 1n 1976 and 1980 to decrImInalIze publlC
lnebrlatlon and fund local and reglonal alcohollc treatment
facllltles faIled Cal 5.B 1382, 1975-1976 Reg Sessj Cal.
S B 1745, 1979-1980 Reg Sess
.
.
. C. Sundance and Beyond
Glven the faIlure of the LegIslature to resolve the
publIC Inebrlate problem by proposed decrlmlnallzatlon and
fundIng of local treatment centers by alcohol eXCIse taxes,
the contInued task of dealIng wlth the publlc InebrIate
problem remalned with law enforcement agenCIes and the courts
The crimInal Justlce system contInued to be used In a
.
.
sporadIC,
arbItrary,
and lrratlonal manner to deal wIth the
.
publIC aspects of problem drlnklog.
Notwlthstandlng knowledge on the part of the medIcal
professlon, the courts, and the LegIslature "that Indlgent,
chronIC alcoholICS are SIck, and since the eXIstIng
facllltles for theIr care are Inadequate, and SInce they are
dIrty and 'unsanltary' (publIC lnebrIates offend the publIC'S
aesthetiC senSIbIlItIes), SOCIety WIll contInue to place them
In JaIl, where they wlll be removed from publIC VIew."
.
.
35
.
.
.
Stevens, DecrImInalIzatIon and Beyond: PVbllC Inebrlty In Los
Angeles County, 3 WhIttIer L. Rev. 55, 79 (1981). This has,
and contlnues to be, the standard practIce and POlICY utIlIzed
by the maJorIty of law enforcement agenCIes throughout
CalIfornia
In 1975, Robert Sundance, a mIddle-aged, homeless,
lodlgent, chronlc alcoholIC WIth a long arrest record for
.
publlC drunkeness,
.
alcohollCS,
and a
along WIth four other SImIlarly sItuated
taxpayer, flIed a laWSUIt in Los Angeles
SuperIor Court, Sundance v. MunICIpal Court, No CA 000257
The case
Involved a wholesale constItutIonal attack on the
.
entIre crlmlnal
JustIce system as
It related to arrest,
.
prosecutIon and lncarceratlon of publlC InebrIates under Penal
Code SectIons 647(f} and (ff)
The trIal court granted the follOWIng relIef In the
case"
.
(I)ndlvldual medIcal screenIng of each
arrestee, monltorlng In holdIng tanks
by a medIcally traIned person of those
unconSClous
Or
in
WIthdrawal,
.
nutrItIonal
requIrements
for
arrestees,
rest faCIlItIes for each
.
arrestee, lImItIng the tIme arrestees
can be confIned In certaIn tanks and
lImItIng the number of arrestees who
can
be
confined In those tanks,
.
furnIshing
blood alcohol tests to
36
.
.
.
arrestees who request them,
llmltat10ns on the use of B-wagons for
transportatlon of arrestees, mlnimum
1n
holdlng
tanks
of
of
requ1rements
arrestees
for
conflnement
.
arralgnment
the tIme
preserved
courts, requlrIng that at
of arrest eVIdence be
and
wltnesses
notedj
.
requIrlng that Indlvldual waIvers be
taken upon a plea of gUIlty, requIrIng
that notIce of probable cause
detentIon hearIngs be communIcated to
each person beIng arraIgned, requlrlng
that the elements of the offense be
commun1cated to each person beIng
arraIgned and requlrIng that trIals
for those who plead not gUIlty be set
wIthln flve court days of arralgnment
Sundance V MunIcIpal Courtj Ct. App.
SlIp. OpInIon at 11-12 (1983).
Sundance IS presently on appeal to the CalIfornIa
Supreme Court.
.
.
.
.
.
D
De Facto DecrlmInallzatIon and PotentIal JudIcial
Decrlmlnallzatlon
.
Many law enforcement agencies have
futIlIty of dealIng wIth publIC InebrIates
recognIzed the
In the crImInal
37
.
.
JustIce system
In 1978,
the Commander of the L.A.P D
Central PolIce DIstrIct stated:
.
The days of crImInal sanctIons
agaInst pUblIC drunkeness are lImIted.
ThIS will eIther be done legIslatIvely
.
or by expanSIon of court codes.
A
polIce agency must antICIpate thIS
trend and traln Its offIcers In the
.
proper use of other usually Included
offenses.
A workIng knowledge of
other statutes wIll asslst offIcers
.
In dealIng WIth persons who even now
wIll not be accepted by detOXIfIcatIon
faCIlItIes ~/
.
In 1977,
the Los Angeles Pollce Department adopted
SpeCIal Order 23 lnstltutlna a wIdespread appl1catlon of the
release procedures set forth In Penal Code Sect10n 849[b)(2)
.
"UntIl adequate faCIlIties are avaIlable, thIS Department WIll
necessarIly contInue to arrest and book publIC InebrIates but
WIll not seek prosecutIon,
absent eXIgent CIrcumstances U
.
SpeCIal Order 23, Los Angeles PolIce Department, Issued July
B, 1977.
The operatIve effect of SpeCIal Order 23 was to decrease
.
arrests by the Los Angeles PolIce Department for public
Inebrlatlon/dlsorderly conduct dramatIcally.
Arrests went
.
22/ Stevens, pecrlmlnallzatlon and Bevond.
Jnebrlty 1n Los Angeles County, 3 Whlttler L
117-118 (1981)
PublIC
Rev. 55,
38
.
.
.
down more than 60\ and prosec~tlons were down 92\. The
followIng table illustrates the reductIon 1n arrests for Penal
Code SectIon 647(f) arrests 1n several Los Angeles Police
Department D1v1s1ons, from 1975-1979.
D1V1Slon
\ +/- (1975-1979)
-43.8
-63.7
-49.5
-63.5
-14.7
-31.2
.
.
Central
Rampart
Hollenbeck
Hollywood
Var. Nuys
Northeast
.
(Table by P ParsonsJ OffIce of Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholIsm
(Aug 1980) (prepared from LAPD Statlst1cal DIgest)
.
The
publIC
treatme~t
socIal and economIC Impact of decreasIng arrests of
InebrIates WIthout the alternatIve of prOVIdIng
faCIlItIes 15 shocklng for both the publIC and the
InebrIate.
"AccordIng to one source, fIre department resc~e
.
.
amb~lance responses In the SkId row area have 1ncreased 26%
SInce the Sundance deCISion SpeCIfIc response categorIes
worth notIng are the follOWIng: assault and fIghtIng
Increased 50%, apparent IntOXIcatIon Increased 22\j inJury
1ncreased 31\" (F. Hunter, A Strateqy in HumanIstIc Urban
ConservatIon VI, 1-2 (1979)funpubllshed manuscrIpt) on fIle at
OffIce on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholIsm.)
.
.
39
.
.
E. Th~ PublIC InebrIate Problem In Santa MonIca.
The
CIty
of
Santa Monica has consIstently been
.
claSSIfIed as a publIC InebrIate problem area.
In 1978, Santa
MonIca ranked fourth In a table of JurIsdIctIons reportIng the
number of Penal Code SectIon 647(f) drunk In publIC arrests.dQ/
.
PUBLIC INEBRIETY TROUBLE SPOTS
TOP 15 HOT SPOTS
Pollee Jurlsdlct)On
Penal Code
SectIon 647ft)
Arrests-1978
\ +/- From
75-78 Data
.
Central ;LF\PDJ
17,687
-38
.
Long Beach
7,165
+45
MacArthur Park (Rampart LAPD)
3,911
-18
2anta MonIca
2,019
+35
Hollenbeck (LAPD)
1,750
-26
.
Pasadena
1,564
+108
Hollywood fLAPD)
1,562
-40
El Monte
1,446
+80
.
Inglewood
1,420
+40
Van Nuys (LAPD'I
1,040
-8
.
East L A (LASO Unlnc.)
1,037
-17
Northeast (LAPD)
972
-9
Glendale
909
+27
Redondo Beach
853
+180
.
.
1Q/ (PublIC InebrIty In Los Angeles County, A Report to
the Board of SuperVIsors fSept. 1980); PrelImInary 1980-81 Los
Angeles County Alcohol Plan (1980); cIted In Stevens,
DecrImIna11zatlon and Beyond. PublIC Inebrlty In Los Anqeles
County, 3 WhIttIer L. Rev 55, 98 (1981).)
40
.
.
South Gate
773
+22
There are other crItIcal IndIcators WhlCh reflect the
.
severlty of publIC InebrIty problems throughout the County of
Los Angeles.
It is a problem WhICh contrary to popular bellef
IS not, and cannot be, confIned to "Skld Row. "11/
.
.
County Health Alcohol-
Services \, 647(f) Related
Reglons Arrests Deaths \, Poverty % Popula.
Central 56 1 25 3 35.9 16.9
Coastal 19.0 29.1 20.7 29.4
San Fernando &
Antelope Valleys 8.5 16 0 14.0 21 7
San GabrIel B 3 15.7 15.6 21 8
Southeast 8.0 13 8 13.7 10.2
99 9 99 9 99.9 99 9
.
.
An analYSIS of Santa MonIca Pollce Department Annual
Reports from 1960 through 1983
Indlcates that arrests of
.
publIC
InebrIates decllned dramatIcally In the ten (10) year
perlod between 1960 and 1970.
(See Appendlx V.)
SInce 1979,
however,
there has been a steady Increase In the number of
.
arrests for publIC drunkeness under Penal Code Sectlon 647(f).
Arrests
In 1983 represented a 46.5\ increase over the number
of arrests
1n 1979.
From 1979-1983, SectIon 647(f) arrests
.
lncreased on the average of 10\ per year.
.
~/ Stevens, DecrImInalIzation and Beyond:
Inebrlty In Los Angeles County, 3 WhIttIer L
(1981).
Public
Rev. 55, 100
41
.
.
.
Total
,!;i47 (f) Arrests
1979 1882
1980 1999
1981 2239
1982. 2473
1983 2758
\ +/- From
Prev10us Year
+6.2\
+12\
+10.4\
.
+11 5\
Based on Federal Bureau of InvestIgation Un1form CrIme
.
Reports, Santa Mon1ca's arrest rate for public drunkeness 1n
1982. was over four (4) times the average arrest rate for
CIties wlth Slmllar populat1ons.
(See AppendlX VI, Table 3 )
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
.
V. PROSECUTION POLICIES
The CrImInal Dlvlslon of the CIty Attorney's offIce
plays an essentIal role in respondIng to the CIty'S local
crIme problem. PolIcIes have been Implemented to ensure the
VIgorous prosecutIon of serIOUS crImInal offenses and the
reductIon of plea bargaInIng once a deCISIon to prosecute has
been made. At the same tIme, the CIty Attorney has attempted
to remove from the crImInal JustIce system matters that are
more approprIately dealt WIth elsewhere
In June of 1981, the Santa MonIca CIty Attorney's offIce
InItIated a prosecutIon poliCY slmllar to SpecIal Order 23
utIlIzed by the Los Angeles PolIce Department. Pursuant to
thls POlICY, publIC InebrIates remaln SUbJect to arrest, but
are released after soberIng up as prOVIded In Penal Code
SectIon B49(b)(2) However, prosecution wlll not be InItIated
unless the arrest report Indlcates speCIfIc crImInal actIVIty
In addItlon to publIC InebrIatIon ThIS POlICY was
Implemented because no law enforcement purpose was served by
commenclng crIminal prosecutIons
CIty and county resources
were beIng expended solely to obtaIn a
sentence of credIt for tIme served.
The POlICY adopted by the CIty Attorney's offIce related
only to prosecutIons and not arrests. ~ThIS prosecutIon
conVIctIon WIth a
POlICY does not neceSSItate any change In the Police
Department's arrest poliCIes concerning publIC InebrIates."
Inter-Department Memorandum, Prosecution Policy Concernlnq
PubliC InebrIates; June 29, 1981.
43
-
-
AddItIonally,
in conJunctIon WIth the Santa MonIca
PolIce Department,
the CIty Attorney's office developed a
-
..
publIC inebrIate hshort form~ arrest report which replaced the
tIme consumIng narratlve report format preVIously utIlIzed by
the PolIce Department
ThIS change slgnif1cantly expedIted
.
publIC InebrIate arrest and bookIng procedures.
The publIC InebrIate prosecutIon POlICY adopted by the
Santa MonIca City Attcrney's offIce In 1981 has had no
.
SignIfIcant
lmpact on the number of arrests made for PUOllC
inebrIation
Arrests have actually increased SInce 1981.
.
Total
Drunk Arrests
1977
2086
1978
2101
.
1979
1989
1980
2115
1981
2487
.
1982
2818
1983
3032
.
1984 (J an 1 -
Sept 30)
2002
On November 26,
19841 the Santa Monlca CIty Attorney
Issued a memorandum clarIfYIng prosecutIon polIcies with
.
respect tc alcoholIC publIC InebrIates) the homeless, and
lndlgents
These polICIes were adopted 1n the context of
specIf1c
cons1deratIons reflectIng the magnItude of the
.
homelessness prOblem In Santa MonIca balanced with a need to
protect the publIC from actual antl-sOClal conduct rather than
44
.
prosecut1on based on an 1nd1v1dual's status.
VII. )
(See Append1x
The City Attorney's prosecut1on poliCies have not
curtailed the Police Department 1n making arrests In
add1tlon to publIC Inebr1ate arrests, the Police Department in
1984 has made 236 arrests for varlOUS offenses such as
panhandlIng, trespass1ng and drInk1ng 1n publlc. In add1t1on,
2,217 c1tat1ons have been 1ssued for these and SIm1lar
vlolat1ons. [As a general rule, vlolatlons 1nvolv1ng drlnk1ng
10 publlC, sleep1ng on the beach) ur1nat1ng and defecat1ng 1n
publIC, result 1n cItatlons (Q-cltatlons) lssued In lleu of
arrest
These C1tatIons
are not entered 1nto a computer
system and were hand counted for
the year 1984.
Most. of the
cltatlons are for dr1nkIng 1n publIc.)
A table summar1z1ng prosecut1ons for mIscellaneous
cr1mes generally attrlbuted to homeless
Ind1V1duals 1S set
forth
1n
AppendIX
VIII.
(The
totals do not reflect
Q-cltatlons, for Wh1Ch records are not retaIned.)
45
-
VI. HISTORY AND PEVELOPMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
IN CALIFORNIA.
-.
--
When we approach the vagrant In
the SpIrIt of charIty, we are merely
advertiSIng
ourselves In order to
seduce hIm Into our Ideology; when we
approach h1m ]Urldlcally we are trYing
-.
-
to Justify ourselves by means of hiS
annihilation.
He
shows
us
our
weakness,
and he shows us the utter
--
egulvocatlon
of our morality.
We
cannot
In good faith say that he is
because he IS Wicked; because we know
-.
--
only too well the ethIcal poverty of
our own more successful practlce. Our
safest bet IS to call hIm mad.
Phlllp
-
O'Connor,
BrItaIn In t~e Slxtles:
Vagrancy, 1963
.
Common Law.
A
In many respects, the hIstory and development of mental
-
-
health serVIces eIther parallels or IS an outgrowth of CIVIl
commItment poliCIes, practIces and procedures.
At common law the VIolently Insane could be detaIned by
..
-
anyone
Deutsch, The Mentally III In America 419 (2d ed.
1949) .
The sovereIgn's police power could be Invoked to
46
-
~
prevent destructlve acts. Restralnt and subsequent commItment
(or worse) were totally dependent on vlolent conduct.
Allan &
~
~
Parr1s, CIV1l CommItment of the Mentally Ill} 14 U C.L.A. L.
Rev 822, 826-27 (1967)
"In colonIal AmerIca thls frequently
amounted to detent10n for publlC executlon.
Both 1n England
~
,..
and AmerIca, the mentally 111 who escaped thIS fate were cast
Into what could only euphernlstlcally be called 'hosp1tals '"
Deutsch, The Mentally III In Amerlca 420 (2d ed. 1949), cIted
~
~
10 Allan & ParrIs, CIVIl Comm1tment of the Mentally Ill, 14
U C L A
L Rev. 822, 824
( 1 9 6 7 )
CommItment to a hospItal,
however, was generally fer an IndetermInate period.
.
B. ~allfornla
Early development of CIVII commltment laws In CalIfornIa
~
,..
paralleled those adopted In other jurlsdlctlons.
In 1897 the
state
Leglslature
adopted a comprehensIve InsanIty law
deSIgned to completely reVIse the eX1stlng laws on the subject
~
..
of
InsanIty
In re Lambert, 134 Cal 626, 66 P. 851 (1901).
The act was copIed from a New York comprehenSlve InsanIty law
enacted
1n
1896.
However,
the Callforola LegIslature
.
negl~cted to 1nclude procedural safeguards WhICh were an
Integral part of the New York statute
Due to the faIlure to
gIve notice to the Indlv1dual beIng commItted prIor to seIzure
.
and delIvery to a mental hospital,
the California Supreme
Court ln Lambert declared the ent1re law unconstItutIonal.
The
1nvoluntary
commitment
laws
enacted by the
.
Callfornla LegIslature subsequent to Lambert rectIfIed the
47
.
-
pre-commitment notIce defIcIency and provIded for Involuntary
commItment
of mentally 111
IndIVIduals who were e1ther
-
-
presently dangerous or lIkely to become dangerous.
Between
1901
and 1967 when the Lanterman-Petrls-Short
Act was enacted, a person Involuntarily comm1tted was deprIved
of numerous personal and CIVIl rIghts.
In addItIon to 10s1ng
the rIght to declIne medIcal or psychIatrIc treatment, the
IndIVIdual was
SUbJect to the follOWing:
( 1 )
automatlC
revocatIon of
profeSSIonal
licenses
for over
twenty (20)
profeSSlons
IncludIng law,
medlClne, account1ng, psychology,
and nursIng;
( 2 )
dIscretIonary revocatIon of
a drIver's
.
-
lIcense by the Department of MotOr Vehicles,
( 3 )
loss of
abIlIty to buy or
sell
property where a tItle search was
reqUIred,
( 4 )
automatIC
loss of
publIC offIce
If
the
..
lncumbent was InvoluntarIly commltted.~1
In
1947
another slgnlflcant development occurred WIth
respect to "who" could be InvoluntarIly comml tted to a mental
-
hospItal
In CalIfornIa.
Prlor to 1947
only a mentally 111
IndIvldual who was eIther presently dangerous or l1kely to
become dangerous could be
lnvoluntarlly commltted.
However,
-
-
In
1947
the Leglslature
saw fIt to expand the commltment
crlterlon from "dangerousness" to self or others to encompass
IndiVIduals who "are of such mental condltlon that they are In
.-
need of
superVISIon,
treatment,
care or
restraInt."
Cal
.
32/ Burke, The Need For Reform In The California ClVIl
CommItment Procedure, 19 Stan L Rev 992 (1967).
48
-
~
Welf. & Inst. Code Section 5550(a)(West's 1947), repealed by
1968 Cal. Stats., c. 798, Sectlon 7, operatlve July 1, 1969
The addItIon of thIs "need of treatmentM standard was
vague and was premIsed not on the state's police power concept
to commlt InVOluntarIly to protect the publlc from vlolent and
destructIve acts, but rather was an Invocatlon of the anCIent
parens patrIae concept to protect and aSslst Indlv1duals 1n
carl~C for themselves
"Commltment for dangerousness to
others serves the polIce power; commItment for dangerousness
to self reveals the government as guardlan to those members of
the co~~unlty unable to care for thelr lnterests" Note,
ClVIl Commltment of the ~entally III TheorIes and Proced~res,
79 Harvard L Rev 1288, 1293 (1966). See Matter of Oakes, 8
Law Rep 122, 125 (Mass. 1845)
-
C The Decllne of Custodlal Hospltallzation for the
Mentally Ill.
It was not until
the early 1960s that WIdespread
on the economlC and human waste
attention was focused
.
assoclated With the operatIon of the state mental hospItal
system In CalIfornla In 1966, the state mental hospItals had
twenty-five thousand patients Eighty-four percent (84%) of
these patlents had been involuntarlly commItted. Burke, The
Neec for Reform in the CalIfornia ClVll CommItment Proced~re,
...
19 Stan L. Rev.
992 (1967].
.
Studles demonstrated that for many years state mental
hospItals were beIng utlllzed as "warehouses" or "dumpIng
49
.
.
.
grounds" for the unwanted and socIally undesirable rather than
for isolating and treating mentally disordered persons
A large number of aged persons wIth no symptoms other
than senility were lnvoluntarily committed to state mental
hospitals. In 1965, 20% of all involuntary commitments
Involved persons over sixty-five (65) years of age. "A 1965
estimate stated that about 4,500 aged pat1ents were lmproperly
placed 1n Callforn1a State Hosp1tals Of thls number) 80\
dled w1thln a year" Callfornla Assembly Interim Comm1ttee on
Ways and Means) f.~nal Report on Health Care SerVices for the
Aged (Aprll 1965)j Callforo1a Assembly Inter1m Commlttee on
Ways and Means, A Summary Report on Health C~re SerVices for
t~e Aged 17 (1964).
Custody rather than treatment became the function and
purpose of state mental hospItals
.
.
.
.
[T]he
community's
assumpt10n
.
[lS] that the state hOspital is a
proper dump for Its problem
people
For years the community
has sent us people WIth little or no
.
mental
illness,
but With lImited
.
ablllty to compete ln the world We
gIve these people no treatment - Just
three squares, a plot 1n the dormitory
and a chance to perform desultory
labors euphemlstically referred to as
"industrIal therapy" . So mental
.
50
.
.
.
hOspItals are beIng told to function
as (a) boardIng nurserIes for
unreconstruct I ble Peter Pans; (b)
front porches for old people; and (c)
pink and blue rIbboned paneled
. InstItutIons for naughty folk.
(Quote, Dr WIllIam Sheeley, former
state mental hOspltal superintendant;
. Burke, The Need for Reform In the
.
CalIfornIa CIVIl CommItment Procedure,
19 Stan. L. Rev 1002 [1967)
The SItuatIon In CalIfornIa's mental hospItals had
reached a critIcal state by 1965 ResIdent patIent populatIon
was more than 1,000 beyond capaclty. 1965 State of CalIfornIa
StatistIcal Abstract 146 (1966). Hospitals were understaffed;
morale was low. More Importantly, costs were hIgh. EmpIrlcal
studIes and data, both state and natIonWIde, concluded that
.
.
state mental hospItals were lll-equIpped to perform theIr
functIon and that hospItalIzatlon was not
In many cases for purposes of effectIve treatment
CalIfornIa Medlcal ASSOCIatIon, Observations and Comments
therapeutIC
essentIal
.
Based On A Survey of CalIfornIa State Mental FaCIlItIes,
( 196 5 )
.
.
51
.
.
.
D The Advent of Community Based Mental Health D~llvery
Systems.
In 1963, the Kennedy AdminIstratIon adopted a natIonal
mental health program wh1ch called for the mentally III to be
treated In the1r own commun1tles. The POlICY underlYIng thlS
InauguratIon of a federal program favorIng communIty mental
health centers was premlsed prImarIly upon effIcacy of
treatment goals rather than budgetary conslderatlons related
to cost reductIon Efforts were made to "focus communIty
resources and provIde better communIty facllltles for all
aspects of mental health care" so that "the center would make
posslble a better understandIng of [the patIent's] needs, a
more cordlal atmosphere for hlS recovery, and a contlnuum of
treatment" Message From the PresIdent of the UnIted States
Relatlve to Mental Illness and Mental Retardation, H R. Doc.
No. 58, 88th Cong., 150 Sess. 3 (1963).
The Communlty Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 (42
U S C. Sections 2681-96 (1964)) authorIzed slgniflcant a1d to
states 1n 1965-1967 for constructIon and staffing of communIty
mental health centers. CalIfornIa communIties for the most
part faIled to utIlIze avaIlable federal funds to establIsh
communlty treatment programs. It IS generally conceded that
federal Clrcumventlon of state polltlcal power structures led
to subsequent state dIsavowal of the new programs. Brown,
PubllC Policy and the RIghts of Mental Patients, 6 MDLR 55, 56
(1982)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
.
.
In 1957, SIX years
Community M~ntal H~alth
before the advent
of the federal
Centers
Act,
the Callfornla
.
LegIslature enacted the Short-Doyle Act WhICh was designed to
provIde an Incentive to communItIes to establIsh local mental
health treatment facIlItIes. Cal. Welf. & lnst. Code SectIon
.
9000-58,
repealed
by 1967 Cal. Stats.,
Cal. Welf. & lnst.
c. 1667, Sectlon 41
Code SectIon 5600 et
(now contalned In
.
seq J.
This early attempt to stimulate communIty mental health
centers produced very few vIable operatIve local programs.
Countles were reluctant to meet the twenty-flve percent
matching fund reqUIrement, partIcularly Slnce they saw the
eXlstlng commItment laws as effectIve for banIshIng
undeSIrables from the local scene to state hospltals. Those
Short-Doyle facIlItIes WhICh were establIshed were utIlI2ed by
many countIes as a mechanIsm to facllltate placement In state
hospItals Burke, The Need For Reform In The Callfornla C1V1I
CommItment Procedur~1 19 Stan. L. Rev 992, 1003-04 (1967).
In the late 19605, long standIng dlssatlsfactlon wIth
eXIstlPg commItment procedures and state hOspItal condItIons
preClpltated a maSSIve overhaul of the state's mental health
system
On January 1, 1967, Ronald Reagan became Governor of the
State of Callfornia On March 14, 1967, hIS AdminIstration
announced SIgnIfIcant reductIons 10 state hospItal personnel
and budget allocatIons It was clear that Governor Reagan
Intended to dIsmantle the state hospItal system and place
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
.
-
-
increaslng
reI lance
on a system of prIvately operated
communIty based facIIItles.
Los Angeles TImes, March 15,
..
-
1967, Sectlon 1 at I, col. 6;
Los Angeles TImes, March 16,
1967, SectIon I, at I, col I.
The result of the Reagan AdmInIstration's budget cuts
.
was to drastIcally reduce the census at vlrtually all state
hospItals
The drastIc reductlon In state hospItal In-patIent
levels has been termed "the transfer of care." Brown, The
.
Transfer of Care:
U.S. Mental Health POlICY SInce World War
II, 9 Internatlonal Journal of Health SerVIces 645, 667
(1979)
The effect of thIS POlICY was "to deInstltutlonallze
.
state hOspItal patIents Into the communIty by placlng them In
unsatIsfactory nurSIng and boardIng homes, largely pald for by
federal Med1cald and 55! funds, where theIr plIght WIll no
.
longer be a problem for state government
ThIS undermInes a
unIform POllCY and IS hIghly questIonable In terms of humane
care "
19- at 56.
ThIS was the sltuatlon In 1967 when the
.
LegIslature enacted the Lanterman-Petrls-Short Act
E The Lanterman-Petrls-Short Act.
.
In 1967,
the CalIfornIa LegIslature replaced eXlstlng
CIVIl commltment procedures wlth a comprehensIve legIslatIve
scheme
denomlnated
as
the
Lanterman-Petrls-Short
Act
.
(hereInafter
"LPg," Cal Wel f. & lost
Code SectIon 5000 et
seq. ,
Stats.
1967,
c 1667, P
4074, SectIon 36, operatIve
July 1,1969).
There was a two year delay between enactment
.
and operatIve effect of LPS.
ThlS reflects the magnItude of
54
.
change 1n eX1st1ng law engendered by the LPg and was necessary
In order for private and publ1C sector adJustments to ensure
-
that the law would become a workable realIty.
The essent1al prov1s1ons of the LPS Act provided for.
[A]
new
statutory
scheme
-
-
repeal1ng
the
Indeterm1nate
commItment,
removIng
the
legal
dIsabIlIties prevIously lmposed upon
.
persons adJudlcated to be mentally
111 ,
and enactlng an e~t~nslve scheme
for
communIty-based
serVIces,
.
emphasizIng voluntary treatment and
prov1dlng for perIods of Involuntary
observatIon and crlSlS treatment for
.
persons who are unable to care for
themselves or whose condItIon makes
them a danger to themselves or others.
.
Thorn v
SuperIor Court, 1 Cal 3d
666,
668,
464
P.2d 56,
58,
83
Cal.Rptr.
600,
601
(1970) (emphaSIS
.
added)
The
extens1ve
scheme of communIty based serVIces
reqUIred organlzation and flnanclng.
To accomplIsh thIS
.
slgniflcant
modIf1catlons
were
made
to
the eXlstlng
Short-Doyle Act.
The second Short-Doyle Act was enacted
concurrently WIth the LPS Act.
(eal. Welt.
& lnst. Code
.
SectIons 5600-5800 [West's 1984).)
It was deslgned:
55
.
.
[T]o organIze and fInance communIty
mental
health
serVIces
for
the
.
mentally dIsordered In every county
through locally adminIstered and
locally controlled communIty mental
health programs. It 1S furthermore
Intended to better utIlIze eXIstIng
.
resources at both the state and local
.
levels
In
order
effectIveness
of
to improve the
necessary mental
health
serVIces;
to
Integrate
.
state-operated and communIty mental
health programs Into a unlfled mental
health system;
to ensure that all
.
mental
health
profeSSions
be
.
approprIately represented and utIlIzed
In such mental health programs; to
prOVIde a means for partlc1patlon by
local governments In the determlnatlon
of the need for and the allocatlon of
mental health resources; to establIsh
a unIform ratio of local and state
.
government
responsIbility
for
.
finanCing mental health serVIces; and
to prOVIde a means of allocatlng state
mental health funds accordlng to
.
56
.
-
-
communlty needs.
(Gal. Welf & lnst.
Code SectIon 5600 (West's 1984)
-
..
The legIslatIve Intent of both LPS and Short-Doyle Acts
was to completely change CalIfornIa's mental health system.
Under both acts, many former questIonable practlces related to
-
-
CIVIl
commitments
have
been
elImInated and communIty
faCllltles establIshed
HoweverJ there are stIll slgnlflcant
questIons and problems WIth respect to standards under WhICh
.
an Indlvldual IS subJect to lnvoluntary custody and evaluatlon
under the LPS Act as well as uncertaInty regardIng the nature,
number}
and functIon of communlty care faCIlItIes establlshed
.
under the second and receptly amended thIrd Short-Doyle Act
F LPg Act Custody and Commltment Problems.
.
Whlle there are several ways for a mentally dlsordered
person to become subJect to the custody/evaluatIon/commitment
prOVISIons of the LPg Act, there are only two procedures WhICh
.
are germane to the scope of thlS report
The InItIal confInement and evaluatIon of a mentally
dIsordered person IS generally accomplIshed pursuant to the
.
prOVISIons of Welfare & InstItutIons Code Sectlon 5150.
PolIce offIcers, staff members of an evaluatlon faCIlIty: and
other deSIgnated professlonals may upon probable cause take
.
Into
custody
or authorize the taKIng
lnto custody an
IndIVIdual who as a result of a mental dlsorder 1S "a danger
to
others,
or to hImself or herself, or
[is] gravely
.
dlsabled "
(Cal
Welf.
& Inst. Code SectIon 5150, (West's
57
.
1984).)
Such
an IndIVIdual
IS subJect to Involuntary
seventy-two
(72) hour custody,
treatment and evaluation.
SImIlar provIsIons are applIcable to IndIVIduals who are
gravely dlsabled or dangerous due to InebrIation.
(Cal. Welf.
& lnst Code SectIon 5170.)
FollOWIng the InItIal 72 hour detentIon, an IndIVIdual
can be "certlfled"
for fourteen
(14 )
addItIonal days of
treatmer.t If:
(1) The staff fInds that the
person IS dangerous to hImself or to
others, or IS gravely dIsabled.
(2) The person has been adVIsed
of but has not accepted voluntary
treatment
-
-
( 3 )
The faCIlIty can prOVIde
treatment.
(Cal Welf. & lnst. Code SectIon
.
5250 (West's 1984)
BarrIng exerCIse of habeas cor~us reVIew, an IndIVIdual
can be held for seventeen
(17) days WIthout JUdICIal reVlew
.
If addItIonal confInement and treatment beyond the seventeen
(17) day perIod IS IndIcated, JudICIal reVIeW IS generally
reqUIred.
SpeCIfIC commitment procedures, conservatorshlps,
.
and on-gOIng judIc1al reVlew are dependent on whether the
mentally dIsordered person IS claSSIfIed as eIther dangerous
to others or gravely dIsabled.
(See Cal Welf. & lnst. Code
.
SectIons 5260-68,5352 (West's 1984).)
58
.
QuestIons and problems related to the LPg Act commItment
procedures center around the meanIng of terms such as:
~dangerous to others,~ "gravely dIsabled," and "dangerous to
self."
These statutory standards are clearly subjective and
InvIte, permIt,
and encourage arbItrary and dIscrimInatory
enforcement
of
the law.
Burford, The "Cuckoo's Nest"
Reassessed.
Involuntary CommItment In CalIfornia After SUZUkI
v.
Yuen and Dee v.
Galllnot; 22 Santa Clara L. Rev.
807
(1982)
A study of custody and commItment procedures under the
LPS
Act
indIcated
that
the Act frequently penalIzed
-
--
IndIVIduals who demonstrated IdIosyncratIC behaVIor.
The author found that
nonstatutory VIolatIons of folkways
.
(wearlng
blzarre
dress,
beIng
tranSIent) haVIng a dIrty home, etc.)
were common crIterIa for the lnltlal
.
commItment under a grave dlsabIlIty
standard.
Furthermore, these patterns
of behaVIor were those most frequently
.
used as eVIdence of faIlure to prOVIde
food,
clothIng,
or
shelter
at
subsequent
hageas
corpus hearIngs.
.
ld. at 824, CItIng Warren, Involuntary
Commltment for Mental DIsorder: The
1I.pplIcatlon
of
CalIfornIa's
.
59
.
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, 11 Law &
Soc'y Rev 629, 634 (Sept. 1977).
However, both state and federal courts have upheld the
LPS Act's "gravely dIsabled"
commItment standard against
challenges that It IS unconstitutionally vague and due process
challenges to the InitIal Involuntary commitment scheme. Doe
v. Galllnot, 486 F. Supp 983 (C.D. Cal. 1979), aff'd 657 F.2d
1017
(9th Clr 1981), Thorn v SuperIor Court, 1 Cal. 3d, 464
P 2d 56,
62 Cal. Rptr. 600 (1970); County of 5~n DIeqo v.
Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 677, 464 P 2d 63, 83 Cal. Rptr 607
l197D}.
The UnIted States Court of Appeal for the NInth CIrCUIt
In Doe dId hold, however, that Since there Was a hIgh degree
of subJectiVIty Involved In InterpretIng the grave disability
-
-
standard,
a mandatory probable cause hearIng was reqUired for
the gravely dIsabled prIor to the fourteen (14) day extensIon
certIfIcation
.
The dIlemma faCing law enforcement and mental health
profeSSIonals
IS what actlon to take to protect or aSSIst
IndIVIduals who may not warrant
Involuntary commltment, but
.
whose
psychologIcal
condItIon
requlres
some
sort of
InterventIon SInce they are also unable to lIve outSIde of an
InstItutIonal
settIng
In
enactIng the LPS Act, the
.
LegIslature
speclflcally Intended
"[t]o protect mentally
dIsordered persons and developmentally dlsabled persons from
crImInal
acts "
(Welf
& Inst.
Code Section 5001(g).)
.
Mentally disordered persons who wander streets and parks
60
.
wIthout medlcatlon,
supervlsed treatment plans, and shelter
are constantly exposed to abuse In the form of beatIngs]
robbery,
and general threats of IntimIdatIon and physIcal
harm.
It IS In thIS SItuatIon that the need for viable
communIty mental health centers and communIty care faCilItIes
for
local
crIsis
Intervention and placement,
short of
commItment, is essentIal
-
G.
The Short-Doyle Act and Commun~~y Mental Health
Programs and FacIlltles.
The Short-Doyle Act IS specIfIcally deSIgned to fund an
-
--
extenSIve scheme of communIty based mental health programs and
faCIIIt1es.
(Ca 1.
W~lf. & Inst Code SectIon 5600 et seq.)
In 1984,
the Act was extensIvely amended by the Callfornla
.
LeoIslature
(1984 Cal Stats, c. 1327.
Pursuant to the Act, the Board of SuperVIsors of each
county]
or Boards of SuperVIsors of countIes actIng JOIntly,
.
are requIred to submIt an annual county mental health plan to
the state DIrector of Mental Health
(Cal.
Welf & Inst.
Code SectIon 5650 )
In developIng a mental health plan, each
.
county shall consider all of the follOWIng specIfIed prlorIty
populatIons'
(a) ChronIcally mentally III
.
( b )
Mentally dIsturbed chIldren and adolescents.
(c) Mentally III elderly
Cd) Mentally III JaIl Inmates and mentally III wards of
. JuvenIle detentIon faCIlItIes.
61
.
(e) Underserved populatIons.
(Cal. Welf. & lnst. Code SectIon 5651 1.)
.-
The Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health as
establIshed by the County Board of SupervIsors IS responsIble
for the admInIstratIon of the Short-Doyle Program for mental
.-
health.
Thls Department operates both countYWIde and regIonal
mental health programs
Los Angeles County IS organIzed Into fIve health serVIce
regIons
theoretically
deSIgned
to
admInIster
a more
decentralIzed delIvery of serVIces:
Central, Coastal, San
Fernando/Ar.telope Valley, San GabrIel Valley, and Southeast.
-
--
A SIgnIfIcant number of health serVIce regIonal boundarles
correspond
WIth
the boundarIes of county superVIsorIal
dIstricts.
.
Each health serVIce regIon IS also subdIVIded Into fIve
mental health regIons
Some mental health regIons are In turn
subdlvIded Into mental health dIstrIcts.
Each regIon IS
.
headed by a Deputy DIrector.
The RegIonal Mental Health DIstrIct boundarIes are
deSIgned for program plannIng purposes onlYi persons are not
.
lImIted to receIVIng care WIthin the health regIons or
dIstrIcts of theIr reSIdence
SerVIces are prOVIded In three
baSIC ways:
( 1 ]
through county operated faCIlItIes, (2]
.
through contracts WIth prIvate prOVIders, and (3) by referral
of patIents to state hospItals,
prIvate hospItals, State
Offlce of Mental Health SOCIal SerVIces, and State Department
.
of
SOCIal
SerVIces.
Ideally,
patIents are to receIVe
62
.
treatment wIthIn their own regIon, and,
It 15 hoped, WIthin
theIr Mental Health DistrIct.
Regional
Deputy
Directors
for Mental Health are
responsible for the planning of mental health serVIces withIn
their respective regIons
Community partIcipation in the
planning process
IS faCilItated by various regIonal and
distrIct lIaison commlttees.
Servlce prOVIders are generally
represented by the Interagency CoordInatIng Committee. The
...
County Department of Mental
Health Central offIce has the
responSIbility for the fInal planning and funding allocation
determIr.atIons for the mental health regions
...
...
In determInIng the allocatIon of Short-Doyle communIty
mental health funds, the County Central Office and regIonal
planners are generally gUided by the California Model serVIce
.
target groups} Index of RelatIve Need, and statutory mandated
programs and target groups.
However,
past
practIce
has shown that obJective
.
crlterIon 15 not the sole determInant of Short-Doyle fundlng
allocatIons
In 1977,
a State Department of Health Report
IndIcated there was a hIstory of political InterventIon In the
.
communIty mental health plannIng and allocation process to a
degree
that
legItimate communIty needs were frequently
Ignored
(State Department of Health Report (July 261 1977);
.
copy available In the Santa Monica City Attorney's OffIce.}
Each year a portion of Short-Doyle community mental health
funds are dlstrlbuted based upon the relative polItIcal
.
63
.
Influence of serV1ce provIders and serVIce populations rather
than accordIng to an obJectIve index of need.
H DIstributIon of Short-Doyle CommunIty Mental Health
Funds 1n Santa MonIca.
The C1ty of Santa Monica
1S located In the Coastal
Mental Health RegIon.
The Coastal RegIon IS further dIVIded
Into four dIstrIcts
Santa MonIca IS In the Santa MonIca West
Mental Health DIstrIct
Coastal RegIon Short-Doyle funds for
1983-84 totaled
$13,545,899
Of thIS total,
the Santa MonIca West Mental
Health DIstrIct was allocated $3,812,698, wh1ch constitutes
30% of the total funds allocated to distrIct programs and 28%
of the total
funds allocated to the regIon.
AppendiX IX
...
contaIns a detaIled table of regIonal and dIstrlct Short-Doyle
allocatIons.
No Coastal RegIonal or Santa Mon1ca West Mental Health
...
DIstr1ct Short-Doyle funds have been allocated or targeted for
homeles~ mentally dIsordered IndIVIduals
The CalifornIa
Model for CalIfornia CommunIty Mental Health Programs, whIch
..
~
IS utIlIzed In conjUnctIon WIth the Index of relat1ve need to
determIne Short-Doyle program fundIng prIorItIes, does not
contaIn a speCIfIC program category for the homeless mentally
dIsordered
The CalifornIa LegIslature, 1n amendIng the Short-Doyle
Act,
faIled to Include programs and funds for the homeless
...
...
mentally dIsordered
It also elImInated entirely preVIOUS
64
..
state fundlng Incent1ves for the establ1shment of Innovat1ve,
communIty based outpatIent treatment services, Wh1Ch were
partIcularly sUIted for adaptatIon to the specifIC needs of
the mentally dIsordered homeless populatIon.
(Cal. Welf.
&
lnst.
Code Section 5705.5, amended by 1984 Cal. Stats., c.
1327.
In fIscal year 1984-B5) the state budget reflected the
largest fundIng 1ncrease for local mental health programs 1n
CalIfornIa's hIstory
The State Department of Mental Health's
budget was $702.5 mIllion, an 11\ Increase over the preVIOUS
fIscal year
The port1on of the budget des1gnated for
communIty mental health programs was lncreased by 15\ or
$471000,000 for a total of $364,000,000 33/ Notwlthstand1ng
the
Increase
1n state funding for communIty mental health
programs,
federal funds preVIously allocated directly to
communIty mental health centers are now IndIrectly allocated
In the form of block grants to count1es through the state.
These 1ndIrect state block grant funds are SIgnIfIcantly lower
than dIrect federal funds.
As a result, several communIty
mental health centers
In Los Angeles County have reduced
~
~
serVIces.
Under eIther fundIng scheme, homeless mentally
dIsordered
IndIVIduals have been VIrtually Ignored WIth
respect to development of programs deSigned to meet theIr
...
baSIC need for shelter and treatment
..
..
33/ Office of the Governor, Press Release (September 25,
1984).
65
.
...
WhIle the POlICY of deinstltutIonallzatlon has
necessarIly engendered the need for communIty health programs
and faCIlItIes, actual Implementation of the Short-Doyle Act
has clearly faIled to resolve the placement problem related to
IndIVIduals dIscharged from state mental hospItals but who are
unable to care for themselves WIthout some level of aId or
superv1slon There IS a growIng consensus that the POlICY of
deInstltutIonallzatlon has been condemned as IrresponsIbly
Implemented.
(T]he next era of reform WIll need to
acknowledge that responSIble communIty
care must Include baSIC life supports
(such as housIng, Income and food),
mental health treatment (IncludIng,
but not lImIted to, outreach, crISIS
1ntervent1on, medIcatIon, and
supportIve therapy, and some degree of
protection, supervIsIon, and
advocacy). Lev1ne, Homelessness: Its
ImplIcatIons for Mental Health PoliCY
and PractIce, PsychosocIal
Rehab1lItatIon Journal, Vol. VIII, No
1, P 12 (July, 1984).
Shelter and follow up treatment IS espeCially diffIcult
Slnce the nature of these lndIv1duals' partIcular mental
Illnesses frequently manIfests Itself In a chronIC denIal of
theIr true mental and phYSIcal deterIoratIon There IS also a
66
fear that contact wIth publlc agencies may lead to either
Incarceration or further involuntary commltment The
functIonal characterlstlcs of the chronically mentally 111
WhICh frequently lead to theIr Inabillty to secure or retaIn a
reSIdence are
(D]lfflculty WIth the tasks of dally
lIVIng,
recurrent problems In meetIng
baSIC survlval needs,
1nabllIty to
seek help
and the
from human SerVIce works,
"actlng
out"
behaVIor
epIsodes of
that may
tendency toward
Interfere w1th the well-beIng of
themselves and/or others Anyone of
these characterlstIcs makes It
dIffIcult for a chronIcally mentally
111 person to ga1n access to hOUSIng
and/or employment; frequently, the
chronIcally mentally 111 have more
than one of these functIonal problems
1..9...- at 8-9
homeless
Bassuk,
comprIse a slgnIflcant percentage of the
The Homelessness PrOblem, SClentlflc
These
1ndlVlduals
AMerIcan, Vol. 251, No.1, P 40 (July 1984). The American
PsychlatrIc Assoclatlon has recently Issued a comprehenSIve
report on the plIght of the homeless mentally III WhlCh
analyses Its causes and makes speclflc recommendatIons for
resolVIng thIS SOCIetal tragedy. (See AppendiX X.)
67
t. LPS Act Placement and Treatment AlternatIves.
In
CalIfornia
during fIscal year 1982-83,
11,275
patIents were discharged from SIX state hospItals for the
mentally dIsabled.
1983 CalIfornia StatIstIcal Abstract 77.
Durlng
1981-82,
13,815
patlents
were
discharged.
ApprOXimately 65-70\ of these dIscharged patIents were from
the Los Angeles County serVIce area
Thus, Los Angeles County
has a critical problem With respect to provld1ng adequate
numbers of mental health profeSSIonals as well as placement
and treatment programs Wh1Ch WIll ensure an orderly tranSItIon
from 1Dstltution to commun1ty support1ve care.
There appear to be two prImary factors WhiCh lead to
homelessness on the part of discharged mental pat1ents.
FIrst,
there is an acknowledged lack of community care
-
faCil1ties avaIlable for placement In the County.
The second and more fundamental problem contr1butIng to
homelessness among many discharged mental patIents IS that
they refuse to comply WIth prescribed treatment programs and
placement
1n eXIstIng communIty care faCllit1es.
"A study of
500 arrested persons In need of psych1atrlc care found that
all had hospItalIzation records, but 94 percent were not
Involved in any outpatIent program 034/
There 1S a def1nIte
need for some form of mandatory out-patIent programs and
placements for both mentally dIsordered Indlv1duals dlscharged
~/ Whitmer, Fro~ HospItals to JaIls: The Fate of
CalifornIa's Deinstitutlonallzed Mentally Ill, AmerIcan
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 50, No.3, p. 738 (Dec
1980l
68
from state mental hospitals as well as a treatment option
under the LPS CIVIl commItment procedures for lndlvlduals
whose condItIon does not warrant InstItutIonalIzation.
WhIle numerous dIscharged patIents are not committable under
the LPS Act, the nature of theIr mental Illness renders them
unable to care for themselves or lIve Indepedently outsIde an
InstItutIon wIthout some level of aid or superVIsIon
The LPg
Act falls to dIrectly address thlS problem.
For that segment
...
of the homeless who are mentally dIsabled, therapeutIc and
survIval Imperatlves are IntImately llnked.
[T]here IS always an InteractIon
between clInIcal and sOCIal problems.
It IS rarely possIble to separate the
two
In
any
way
that would be
...
...
convenIent
for the development of
Independent
medIcal
and
soclal
servIces.~/
.
ArtlflClally separatIng treatment from surVIval needs
reflects a POlICY of dealIng WIth the mentally dIsordered
ho~eless on a baSIS of neglectful expedIency
.
[I]t IS dlfflcult to delIver mental
health serVIces to a homeless mentally
III IndIVIdual who IS destItute and
.
phYSIcally Ill.
A part of any mental
health treatment program to a homeless
.
~/ WIng & Olsen, CommunIty Care for the Mentally
DIsabled, Oxford UnIverSIty Press, p 172 (1979).
69
.
mentally III person must
Include an
attempt
to
help
stablllze
the
immediate physIcal envlronment of the
lndIVldual. Provldlng shelter} food}
physlcal health care and protectIon
from VIolence became a signIfIcant
mental
health
treatment
process.
Farr, The Los Angeles Sk1d Row Mental
Health ProJect,
Los Angeles County
Dept of Mental Health 14 (1983).
A grOWIng number of courts and leglslatures have
attempted to deal WIth the chron1cally mentally III who cannot
be commltted as mentally dIsordered, but who are too SIck to
be placed on the streets
-
The New Jersey Supreme Court
In the case of In re
Com~lt~ent of S L ,
94 N J
128,
462 A.2d 1252 (1983),
conSIdered the Issue of the legal status of patIents In state
-
....
mental hOspItals who had been dIscharged Slnce they were no
longer dangerous to self, to others or to property
However,
these pat1ents were unable to surVIve Independently outSIde
.
the Instltutlon WIthout some care and superVIsion
The court created a hybrId status of "discharged pendIng
pI a cemen t ,.
(DPPl whereby when a commItment reVIeW hearIng 1S
-
-
held, the court"
shall
make
a further
lnqulry to
determIne whether the
IndIVIdual 15
.
capable of leaVIng the lnstltutlon.
70
.
If the court determInes that the
IndlVldual
IS not able to surVIve 1n
the communIty Independently or wIth
the help of famIly or fr1ends, the
court shall dIrect that the IndIVIdual
remaIn
in
the
instItutIon,
but
ImmedIately
schedule
a
placement
reVIew hearIng to occur WIthIn 60
days
(In re CommItment of S L
et
~l ,
94 N J 128, 462 A 2d 1252, 1258
(1983)
If no approprIate placement IS found WIthIn 60 days,
placement reVIew hearIngs would be held every SIX months. The
commItment/placement court also has the optIon of exercISIng
contInUIng
JurIsdIctIon concernIng the care,
superVISIon,
placement or commItment of the IndIVIdual.
In CalIfornIa,
the only comprehensIve treatment and
...
...
placement prOVISIon under the LPS Act deals WIth mentally
dIsordered IndIvlduals who have actually carrIed out, or
threatened,
serIOUS and substantIal phYSIcal harm to another
.
rWelf.
& Inst.
Code SectJon 5300.)
For persons commItted
pursuant to SectIon 53001
there are prescribed placement,
treatment,
and supervlslon reqUIrements.
(Welf & lnst. Code
-
-
SectIon 5305.) However, these prOVISIons provIde no relIef to
the maJorIty of dIscharged mentally dlsordered patIents who
are not commIttable, but who cannot effectIvely safeguard
.
theIr own phYSIcal and economIC interests.
71
a
The rationale for the New Jersey Supreme Court's
deCIsIon rested on what it considered to be the responsIbilIty
of the state under the parens patrIae authorIty.
Although the state does not have
the authority to cont1nue the legal
commItment of the appellants,
It IS
not reqUired to cast them adrlft Into
the communIty when the IndIVIduals are
Incapable of surVIval on their own
In a proper exerCIse of
Its parens
patrlae authorIty, It may therefore of
neceSSity contInue the conflnement of
such
persons on a proVISlonal or
cond1t1onal baS1S to protect thelr
essent1al well-beIng, pendIng efforts
to foster the placement of these
IndlVlduals
1n
proper
supportIve
-
...
settIngs outSIde the InstItutIon. In
re CommItment of S.L.,
94 N.J. 128,
462 A 2d 1252, 1258 (1983)
.
The ArIzona LegIslature has taken an innovatIve approach
In attemptIng to solve the dllemma of confInement versus
leaVIng a mentally dIsabled person on the streets to wander
...
WIthout a home or treatment alternative
Section 36-540 of
the Ar1zona Mental Health SerVices Act permIts mentally III
patIents to be ordered Into mandatory outpatient programs as
.
an alternative to InstItutIonalIzatIon or no treatment at all.
72
.
FollowIng a hearIng an lndIVldual can be ordered into an
outpatient program for periods up to one (1) year.
FaIlure to
comply wIth mandatory outpatIent treatment may result In the
person beIng commItted to an InstItutIon.
In addItIon to
ArIzonaj
a number of other states have Implemented mandatory
outpatient treatment programs.
There IS a move toward statutory
prOVISIon for compulsory outpatlent
treatmentj
about 20 states now permIt
a court to order outpatIent treatment
In
place
of
hospltallzatlon for
patIents
In
the CIVIl commItment
process.
OutpatIent commitment has
been successful
In the DIstrIct of
ColumbIa, and reports are avaIlable on
Its'
use In North CarolIna
Bu tIn
general
It
IS an untapped potentIal
-
-
for
deal1ng
WIth the chronIcally
mentally III who are reluctant to seek
treatment.
AmerIcan
PsychIatrIc
...
...
ASSOCIatIon, The Homeless Mentally III
267 (1984)
Of
unquestIonable
Importance In these legIslatIve
-
.....
schemes
IS that mandatory outpatIent programs are unworkable
unless faCIlItIes and VIable treatment programs eXIst. The
approach
utIlIzed
by
mental health profeSSIonals, the
.
legIslature,
and courts should reflect a WIllIngness to
73
.
utIlIze nontradItIonal treatment approaches
In dealing ..nth
the homeless mentally ill
Our
work
has
shown
that
traditIonal mental health treatment
approaches usually are not affective
( SIC )
In reachIng out to or treating
the homeless chronIcally mentally III
Our InitIal thrust In the Los Angeles
SkId Raw Mental Health ProJect was
based on tradItIonal mental health
treatment approaches and dId not prove
effective.
As
the
tradItlonal
approaches were abandoned and new and
unIque
methods
of
outreach
and
aSsIstance Were developed, the program
became IncreaSIngly successful.
Farr,
Th~ Los anqeles SkId Row Mental Health
Pr9gram,
Los Angeles County Dept of
Mental Health 15 (19B3).
Unless and untIl the CalIfornIa legIslature beglns to
-
-
examIne alternatives to the present state mental hospItal
commItment/dIscharge
scheme under the LPg Act, mentally
dIsabled IndIVIduals wlll contInue to swell the ranks of the
homeless
"AnalYSIS of the problem of homelessness (of the
mentally dIsordered) shows the Inadequacies of a conventional
'serVIce'
approach
and suggests that
'therapeutIC'
and
...
evecyday
'surVIval' needs must be conSIdered simultaneously."
74
...
InstItute for Social Welfare Research, PrIvate LIves/PublIC
Places:
Homeless Adults on the Streets of New York CIty 5
(1981).
What
IS
needed
1S
continued
protective
InstItutlona11zatIon pendlng beneficIal
communIty placement
coupled
wIth
some
form
of
mandatory
outpatIent
placement/treatment
scheme such as the one beIng utIlIzed In
Arlzona.
However,
before any legIslatIon
IS drafted WhICh IS
modeled
after
the
New
Jersey
contInued
protectIve
InstItutIonalIzatIon plan or the ArIzona mandatory outpatIent
treatment program) careful reVIew and conSIderatIon should be
gIven to potentIal InfrIngement of patIents' CIVll rIghts It
appears that contlnued protectlve Instltutlonallzation pendIng
benefICIal
communIty placement IS vIable only where there are
-
adequate numbers of communIty placement
faCIlItIes and when
placement reVlew hearIngs
are scheduled at more frequent
Intervals
than every 60 days as eXIsts under the present New
-
Jersey plan.
WIthout these protectIons many dIschargable
mentally dIsordered patIents mIght otherWIse
langUIsh for
months In state mental hospItals
.
The
Arlzona
mandatory
outpatlent program permlts
lnvoluntary commItment WIthout prIor
JUdICIal reVIew of a
patIent who
1S determIned to be
In non-compliance WIth the
-.
-
terms of a mandatory outpatIent order.
It would appear that
before a patIent's status can be changed from outpatIent to
Involuntary commItment to a psychIatrIC faCIlIty, some form of
.
75
.
judICIal or admInIstrative hearIng be held prIor to, or WIthIn
a short period of tIme subsequent to, commltment
...
~
..
~
.
76
~
~
VII.
~ONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There may be a message In the 34
year-old ChIcago man who was killed
recently when the out-of-order trash
compacter
In
whIch
he had been
sleeping for weeks was mended wIthout
hIS knowIng
1t and the man, hav1ng
conceIved of hImself
as an ally of
refuse
and
havIng
been for
all
practIcal
purposes
refuse,
fInally
became
refuse and was compacted.
But
If
there
15 a message,
I'm not sure
that I want to know what It IS.
-
-
Ebenezer Hob
"ConfessIons"
Wash1ngtonlan MagaZIne,
July 1978
The ultImate fate of refuse IS to be dIscarded
Placed
In garDage
cans, dumpsters, and dump trucks.
FInally to be
.
bulldozed over and burled
In the wasteland of lnanlmate
ObJEcts,
the dump
Trash,
refuse,
waste] and garbage, a
prec1se and pure leXIcon of uselessness
.
Homeless
indIVIduals across the country are beIng
IncreasIngly
subJected
to
a
pervaSive
Involuntary
metamorphOSIS.
Labeled and characterIzed not In human anImate
.
terms,
the homeless have been transfor~ed Into human refuse.
As WI th
InanImate waste, the next stage once a dehumanIZIng
characterIzatIon
IS
affIxed,
1 S
to
dIscard.
ThIS
.
ever-grownlng tendency to dIscard and Ignore the homeless
77
.
reflects a fundamental disregard for the value and dIgnity of
IndIVIdual human beIngs.
The cItizens of Santa MonIca must recognIze that the
homeless, whether In PalIsades Park, along the beach, or
foragIng
In the trash bIns behInd grocery stores,
are
symptomatIc of a natIonal crISIS not attrIbutable to the
POlICY of any present or past City adminIstratIon
PublIC
outcrIes
"to rId our streets of vagrants, publIC inebrIates,
panhal"dlers,
and
tranSIents" generate fear rather than
understandIng and are generally unresponsIve to the problem
confrontIng our communIty
-
State,
County and munICIpal governments are at a
crossroad:
[E]lther they recognIZe the urgency
-
-
and
magnItude
of
contemporary
homelessness
and
take
ImmedIate
remedIal
and preventIve actJon, or,
-
-
lIke
the
CircumlocutIon
OffIce
memorIalIzed by Charles DIckens In
Llttle Dorrlt (1857), devote "half a
.
score of boards,
half a bushel of
mInutes,
several sacks of offlclal
memoranda,
and a famIly-vault full of
.
ungrammatIcal
correspondence"
to
further study of the problem 36/
.
d&/ CommunIty SerVlce SOCIety of New York, One year
~ater. The Homeless Poor In New York CItYI 1982, 5S (1982)
78
t
Homelessness IS a national dIsgrace.
It wlll continue
to be a harsh remInder to all AmerIcans that the underSIde of
-
apparent economIC prosperIty IS manIfested in sufferIng and
degradatIon for a SIgnIficant and growlng number of our
cltlzens.
.-
As thIS report IndIcates, the homeless problem can only
be successfully addressed outSIde the crimInal Justice system.
In order to address the CIty'S homeless problem, the Clty
-
-
Attorney recommends actIon In the follOWIng areas.
1 .
ConSIder
the establIshment of a one year law
enforcemenC/serVlce pIlot program WhICh would authorIze the
...
creatIon of two
( 2 )
addItIonal pOSItIons
In the PolIce
Department conSIstIng of two (2) polIce offIcers and two (2)
CIty cIVlllan pOSItIons In a department such as the CommunIty
.
and NeIghborhood SerVIces DIVISIon deSIgnated as communIty
crISIS InterventIon offlcers speCIally traIned and experIenced
WIth the homeless and pUblIC InebrIates
These pOSItIons
.
would be used to form two
(21 crISIS
InterventIon teams
comprised of one
(1) polIce offIcer and one (1) communlty
crISIS
InterventIon offIcer
These teams would have prImary
.
responslbllty for the follOWIng:
(aJ Make approprIate referrals and transport If
necessary homeless mentally disordered persons, and publIC
.
InebrIates,
to
prIvate
or
publIC
sector
shelters,
detoxlflcatlon centers or other deSlgnated faCIlItIes.
lb) When necessary, take indIVIduals Into custody
.
for commlttment under the LPS Act SectIon 5150.
79
.
(c) Develop a workIng knowledge and relationship
of}
and with,
indIvIduals and groups who comprIse the
homeless, publIC InebrIates, and mentally dIsordered street
populatIon In the CIty of Santa MonIca.
(d) Communlcate
and cooperate wIth communIty
organlzatlons
With established serVice programs for the
homeless, mentally dIsordered, and publIC InebrIates.
(e) SubmIt perIodIC statIstIcal reports to the
Santa MonIca CIty CounCIl
2 ConSIder the CIty establIshIng a drop-ln center for
the homeless
3. Seek state legIslatlon In the follOWIng areas.
a LegIslatIon SImIlar to on sectlons of the
ArIzona
Mental Health Act reqUIrIng mandatory outpatIent
...
...
treatment and placement of mentally dIsordered IndIVIduals who
are not commIttable under the LPS Act but who are unable to
lIve lndependently WIthout some level of aId or superVlslon
~
b.
Leglslatlon
reqUIrIng
a
mandatory
determlnatlon to be made prlor to dIscharge of a mentally
dIsordered person from a state hospltal as to whether the
..
~
lndIVIdual
IS able to surVIve In the communIty Independently:
otherWIse the person shall be placed In an approprlate
outpatIent faCIlity
...
~
c
In
draftIng
any
legIslatIon related to
mandatory outpatIent treatment or pre-dlscharge placement
determInatIons,
careful conSIderation should be gIven to the
..
~
80
.
nature and frequency of judicIal review In order to avoId
potent1al due process v1olat1ons.
d. The LegIslature approprIate suffIC1ent state
funds
for establishment of shelters and community care
faCll1t1es for mandatory placement of mentally dIsordered
homeless
IndlVlduals and establ1shment of the mandatory
pre-dIscharge community placement determInation program
4 The CIty Manager should conSIder designatIng a staff
member
to serve as a llalson responsIble for actIvely
lnteractlng
1n the Los County Department of Mental Health's
Coastal
regional and dlstrlct mental health annual plannIng
-
process
Thls would, at a mlnlmum, ensure that the speCIfIC
mental
health
needs of the Clty of Santa Mon1ca are
systematIcally
formulated
(publIC hearlngs held by the
-
-
Councll)
and presented In wrItten form to approprIate County
offiCIals to be considered for inclUSIon
in the annual Los
Angeles County Mental Health Plan.
-
5.
Conslderatlon should be glven to brlnglng lltlgatlon
agaInst the the County of Los Angeles to comply WIth SectIon
17000 of the Welfare and Instltutlons Code by prOVidIng
-
..
IndIgent homeless resldents necessary emergency shelter on the
Westslde.
At the present tIme the County contracts WIth three (3)
.
motel/hotels on the Westslde to provlde emergency shelter.
There are generally only SIX (6) avallable vacanCIes on any
given night In these faCilIties Once these establishments
.
..
are full, homeless people are gIven the optlon of alternatIve
81
.
shelter
(If available) at hotels In and around the SkId Row
sectIon of downtown Los Angeles.
As a general rule,
a sIgnIficant number of homeless
people prefer sleepIng outSide in Santa MonIca rather than
travelIng a great dIstance to a SkId row hotel where they fear
-
for theIr phYSIcal safety.
ThIS IS especIally true In the
cases of homeless women and famIlies
Because
of the faIlure of the County to prOVIde
meanIngful
shelter
In the WestsIde area,
the CIty of Santa
MonIca has been forced to expend SIgnIfIcant publIC resources
In dealIng wIth the homeless
-
--
6.
Seek
state
legIslatIon
to prOVIde funds for
emergency
shelters,
drop-In centers,
and mental health
faCIlItIes to meet the current and future needs of the
.
homeless populatIon of CalIfornIa.
7. ConSIder commenCIng lItIgatIon agaInst the County
wIth respect to Its faIlure to provlde treatment to gravely
-
-
dIsabled IndIvIduals In the communIty
8 CIty staff should conSIder prepare a report on the
feaSlblllty of establishIng a CIty sponsored day labor program
.
for
homeless
IndIVIduals
The support of the business
community should also be explored WIth respect to prOVIdIng
Job opportunItIes for the employable segment of the homeless
.
populatIon
9 CIty staff should conSIder working WIth communIty
groups or agenCIes to expand the shelter available to homeless
.
persons.
82
.
-
-
10 CIty staff should conslder preparIng a report for
the City Councll wIthIn 90 days of the date of thIS report as
to the feaslblllty of establishIng a City sponsored (by the
CIty
or
In
conJunctIon
WI th
other
CItIes) ,
JOInt
Clty/commun1ty agency sponsored, or communIty agency sponsored
-
comprehenslve day treatment mental health center.
Such a
center would serve as a model communlty alternative for
mentally dIsordered homeless persons
AddIt1onally, In the
event mandatory outpatIent treatment legIslatIon IS enacted,
centers of thIS type could serve as one form of superVIsed
treatment center
11 City Staff should consIder optlons related to
eIther extendIng the hours eX1stIng publIc restroom faCIlItIes
are open,
or expanding these or alternat1ve faCIlIties 1n
-
-
order to reduce cases of publIC defecatlon and urInatIon.
PREPARED BY: Robert M Myers, CIty Attorney
Raymond F. CorreloJ Deputy C1ty Attorney
DeSIgnate
-
-
-
-
-
...
83
-
..
-
-
-
.
.
.
.