Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hn_throwaway_99

So digging into the report that is linked from the article and other commenters here (link below, search for "Pilot Safe Sleep Site" in that article), some relevant points:

1. The "$2600" number is calculated from the $1,491,410 total cost / 70 spaces / 8 months.

2. Regarding staffing, "The staffing plan Urban Alchemy recommends for a successful program is a minimum staff-to-participant ratio of one (1) to 12." So included in the price tag is at least 6 paid staffers, and I'm assuming 24 hour coverage is needed (or at least 16 hour coverage).

3. Regarding the price, "Given the program’s high cost, we recommend that the data outcomes/effectiveness of the program be reported on by the CAO and LAHSA before initiating additional sites. "

I think this all highlights what a mistake it was regarding the basic shutdown of federal mental hospitals in the early 80s [2]. If it turns out that the cost for dealing with homeless is this high for a simple tent encampment in a parking lot because of the cost of support services, why not provide that support in a more permanent medical facility (obv. not all homeless are mentally ill but many/most of long term homeless are).

[1] https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-0841_rpt_cao_03...

[2] https://sites.psu.edu/psy533wheeler/2017/02/08/u01-ronald-re...

Deinstitutionalization was a mistake. While the advent of psychiatric drugs in the 60s reduced the need for these massive long term care facilities, there are still (and always will be) mentally ill people who require long term care. The community mental health facilities that were to replace asylums never materialized, and now a majority of these people now spend their life on the street. Some will argue that these facilities were inhumane, but I think it's far more inhumane to just kick severely mentally ill people out on the street with no support resources.

I don't think we should fall into the trap of thinking it has to be one or the other. people shouldn't be kicked out onto the street & the asylums absolutely were inhumane. reestablishing them is not a decent solution, & "requires long term care" doesn't necessarily mean "needs to be locked up"

The mental hospitals were bad. When something is known to be bad in California, it is made illegal, thus solving the problem completely (/s).

There was a similar thing with the foster care system; I'm not sure if it was state-wide or just my county, but they banned foster care group homes (which had worse outcomes than typical foster families[1]). Of course everyeone already knew that it was better to place these kids in a typical foster family, but there was nowhere else to place them. Now there are plenty of "Theraputic residential treatment centers" which seem to be roughly the same thing, just with a different name.

(Side note: if you can, become a foster family; there aren't enough)

1: Even the whole "outcomes are worse" is a bit dubious since usually kids don't end up in group homes until they've been kicked out of one or more foster families, so these kids were already being failed by the system before ending up in group homes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com