Comments
iAUDIT! - Perhaps one of the most underrated combat leaders of the U.S. Civil War was Union Major General George Thomas. A Virgina native and veteran of the regular army, Thomas remained loyal to the Union. (Locking his house as he left before moving north, he told his Richmond neighbors they’d have hell to pay for their rebellion). He was very much a modern general. He made extensive use of new technologies like railroads and the telegraph. He collected, verified, and distilled data by scouting ahead of his planned marching route and had maps prepared on cloth so the ink wouldn’t run if they got wet. He was a proactive and flexible communicator, thoroughly explaining his plan to subordinates, but adapting as conditions evolved. Although his methodical approach was criticized by other more impetuous generals, he was one of the most successful battlefield leaders of the war. Of the only two times a Union army broke a Confederate siege; Thomas was in command. His defeat of the southern Army of Tennessee in early 1865 at the Battle of Franklin was so devastating, that army ceased to exist as en effective combat force. As Thomas Buell, author of “The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War” wrote, Thomas’ strength was his ability to see reality as it was in real time, gather reliable data, and modify his plans to meet his goals. He never let his ego dictate his decision making.
L.A.’s homelessness programs leadership could learn a few lessons from General Thomas. Despite a demonstrable lack of progress, local officials tenaciously cling to a failed model of homeless interventions. Advocates consistently project a false picture of who the unhoused are so they can justify expensive programs that do little to address the cause and consequences of homelessness. To use terminology General Thomas would understand, they go into battle without a plan, on unfamiliar ground, against an adversary they know little about, using the wrong weapons.
One of the most grievous faults of Housing First is its one-size-fits-all approach to homelessness. Quickly summarizing, advocates believe homelessness’ primary cause is the high cost of housing; most other problems such as mental illness and substance abuse are the result of being homeless. Therefore, the top priority is to house someone, where, in theory, they will receive the services they need to stay housed. Unfortunately, reality does not fit this model. People become homeless for a wide variety of reasons. Certainly, wage equity plays a part, as wages have fallen behind rent increases and the steep rise in home prices. However, has been shown in many studies, anywhere between 50 and 65 percent of the unhoused reported problems with substance abuse before becoming homeless, and about 50 percent said they suffered from mental illness. According to the homeless assistance group Hollywood 4FWD, more than 90 percent of substance abusers don’t want recovery assistance and at least 50 percent of those who are mentally ill don’t know they need help. For many of these people, the mere provision of a home is not enough—they need structured, intense care. As highlighted by a survey of Inside Safe residents conducted by an advocacy coalition, those services do not exist. The survey results are supported by the County’s difficulty producing performance reports that show how many people have received services and what the outcomes were.
Pretending the homeless population primarily consists of people down on their luck denies them the services they so desperately need. It is also a huge waste of taxpayer money and government resources. And it is a terrible injustice to residents and business owners whose daily lives are upended by encounters with disturbed homeless people. The entire outreach-shelter-housing system is drenched in waste because it steers funding and efforts to failed programs, as I described earlier this year.
Let’s dive a bit deeper into who the homeless really are. Advocates like Knock L.A. and Ashley Bennet, assistant to City Controller Kenneth Meija, insist encampments are “visions of love and community”. They also assert the vast majority of the unhoused stay in the communities where they are from and where they were last housed, bolstering their claim the cost of housing is the primary cause of homelessness. Objective studies and the overwhelming experience of thousands of Angelenos prove how false this narrative is.
As I wrote in an earlier article, a survey of San Francisco’s homeless population showed 40 percent of the unhoused said they were not from the city, and 37 percent said they’d lived in town less than a year. Given its weather and lax enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, it is likely the percentages for LA’s homeless population are similar, if not greater.
A 2022 study from San Diego’s District Attorney’s Office offers a startingly different picture of the homeless population than advocates would have us believe. Compared to the housed population, homeless people are:
· 175 times more likely to commit robbery
· 183 times more likely to commit residential burglary
· 514 times more likely to commit arson.
Lest you think the DA was trying to score cheap political points by blaming the unhoused in for most crime, the study points out that many of those arrested—a small portion of the homeless population--accounted for most of the crime, “Of the individuals experiencing homelessness who have been charged with a crime and recidivated in the two-year period studied, 83% had two to four cases filed against them, and 15% had between five and nine cases filed against them”. As with the general population, a relatively small number of unhoused people commit most of the crime.
Further, the study said the unhoused are also crime victims more frequently than the housed. They are:
- 19 times more likely to be murdered
- 15 times more likely to be robbed
- 15 times more likely to be victims of domestic violence
- Nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted
If you are tempted to dismiss the study as just another right-wing “law and order” DA trying to criminalize homelessness, note the study incudes a three-tier program of diversion and referral to the new CARE Court system to steer people to the services they need before they become repeat offenders, and add a string of criminal charges to their existing difficulties.
Again, if you want to say the study cherry-picked statistics, consider evidence from other sources.
- A May 2021 L.A. Times article quoted a Los Angeles Fire Department Captain who said homelessness-related fires caused $185 million in damage between 2017 and the first few months of 2021. Not only did homelessness-related fires increase response costs, they accounted for 54 percent of all fire calls in the city. People experiencing homelessness make up about one percent of the city’s population and account for 22 percent of the costs of fire damage and more than half the number of fires.
- Between 2022 and 2023, the Metro system suffered a 54.7 percent increase in crime, much of it attributed to disturbed homeless people. This is all the more troubling because the City intends to emphasize public transportation for the 2028 Olympics, and because high-density housing proponents insist that new developments have minimal parking to force tenants to use the Metro system.
- On a more intimate level, Norm Langer, the second generation owner of Langer’s Deli, is thinking of closing the legendary eatery because of problems with aggressive homeless people and crime in the adjacent MacArthur Park.
Mr. Langer’s experience and that of Metro’s riders illustrate the consequences of our leaders’ stubborn refusal to accept the reality of who the homeless are. By insisting “only homes will solve homelessness”, they willfully deny the fact many people require intervention and long-term structured care, something the mere provision of a spartan apartment does not provide. From the coalition survey I cited earlier, and from the lack of performance data on City and County websites, we know most people in need aren’t receiving the services they require to live independently. For all the political rhetoric about “locking arms” and working together, the system remains disjointed, broken, and ineffective.
Just a reminder: I, nor any other reasonable person, believes the majority of homeless people are crazed drug addicts or raving lunatics. As San Diego’s DA said, a relatively small number of the unhoused commit most of the crimes, and many of their victims are other homeless people. That makes Housing First’s failure all the more tragic because it fails to help those who could be re-housed quickly, leaving them vulnerable to crime and disease. It also fails to provide restorative services to those who need them. Most homeless people would greatly benefit from services LA’s version of Housing First doesn’t provide.
We need to ask why local government refuses to deal with the reality of the homeless population. It’s hard to understand why otherwise intelligent, moral and compassionate people would accept the current system’s universal failure. The answer lies in the old adage, “follow the money”. First, there’s pressure from above: the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), a key source of homelessness funding, only pays for programs based on Housing First protocols. State and local governments are loathe to challenge the system that provides them billions in funding. Unfortunately, they are in the best position to lobby for more effective changes, but they don’t. It is much easier to complete the required forms and follow established procedures than it is to challenge the status quo.
Second, there is pressure from below. The great majority of LAHSA’s $800 million budget goes towards paying a constellation of large corporate nonprofit organizations. As I wrote in last week’s column, these agencies have worked with local government to craft lucrative contracts that pay for processes rather than outcomes. Add in the millions more paid by the City and County, and the financial interest of maintaining the status quo becomes clear. These organizations take advantage of the mantle of being “nonprofit” and beatific in their stated purpose, to justify a cruel and inhumane system of ineffective outreach, a dearth of effective services, and a near-complete lack of results. Squeezed between misguided policies from above and special interest pressure from below, local elected officials have abdicated their duty to lead and remain frozen in a position that helps neither the unhoused nor the general public.
George Thomas succeeded because he took the time to educate himself on his adversaries, developed comprehensive yet flexible plans, applied the proper solutions, and adjusted his thinking to meet the reality before him. The Civil War may have ended 159 years ago, but L.A.’s leaders would do well to learn from his lessons from the past. They continue to pursue failed polices because they continually make decisions that only drag them and residents deeper into the homelessness crisis.
(Tim Campbell is a resident of Westchester who spent a career in the public service and managed a municipal performance audit program. He focuses on outcomes instead of process.)
