The following article was first published in the Voice of OC.

Orange County’s emergency response plan fails to protect homeless people from El Niño storms.

As those storms rolled in early last week, Orange County officials faced a first test of their emergency response plan aimed at protecting people living in the riverbed. The plan failed miserably.
In December, the Board of Supervisors committed $500,000 to an action plan that will ensure “that temporary shelter beds/services for the homeless will be available immediately in the event of severe weather and/or other emergency conditions.”

%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22allowfullscreen%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22360%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2F31WooOvoooM%3Frel%3D0%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20width%3D%22640%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

Recognizing that the county’s cold weather shelter system at the National Armories has the capacity to serve only a fraction of all people who are homeless, the plan contracts out shelter services that would temporarily expand the system by 440 beds to accommodate people residing in the Santa Ana riverbed and flood channels during El Niño storms.

As the first El Niño downpours of the season roared through the county, however, the promised emergency spots were nowhere to be found.

Homeless and forgotten, stories from the Santa Ana riverbed

 

According to people living at a riverbed encampment under the Katella Avenue Bridge in Anaheim, the county’s response had been limited to one Health Care Agency worker who came by before the deluge. The worker distributed flyers with contact information for the usual emergency shelter programs, but made no mention of additional emergency space people could access during the storm.

People living at riverbed encampments by the Chapman bridge and the 5 Freeway in Orange said they had not seen even one county outreach worker before the storms hit.
Residents of a riverbed encampment under the 5 Freeway said that police officers had warned them about the impending storm and had advised them to seek high ground—yet the officers did not assist people in accessing emergency shelter.

As one officer explained, “We have no plan to put people in emergency shelter because we have nowhere to put them. The Armories are bursting at the seams.”

We have no plan to put people in emergency shelter because we have nowhere to put them.

In the absence of government help, many riverbed dwellers sought shelter under the bridges, but space was limited. Others rode out the storms with tarps and tents, set up along the embankments.

Homeless people living in the Santa Ana Civic Center were also trying to figure out how to stay safe and dry. As the storm raged early Tuesday morning, some huddled under the awning of the Santa Ana Public Library, only to be forced back into the downpour by Santa Ana police officers.

Among the people in the area were Bernie Duschame, 57, who lives in the Civic Center Plaza. He said the officers did not give people an alternative place to go.
Local governments did not neglect the emergency needs of everyone, however.

While homeless people scrambled for shelter under bridges, awnings and hand-made lean-tos, the Orange County Fire Authority, along with several cities throughout the county, were busy providing free sand bags to local housed residents and business owners.

Of course, the county could have avoided the severe weather emergency for people living outdoors by implementing their own Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. This plan claims to use a “housing first” approach that emphasizes placing persons who are homeless in safe and affordable permanent housing as an immediate response to their crisis.

Yet this year—year four in the plan—the county has the capacity to house only one in 10 of the thousands of people experiencing homelessness on any given night.
In the interim Orange County officials need to respond to El Niño storms with meaningful action.

Empty promises will not keep people living outdoors safe and dry during storms, and will not protect them from hypothermia and other weather-related health and safety hazards.
And while the county contracted out implementation of the plan to a local nonprofit agency, this does not absolve it of responsibility for the public health and safety of its citizens.

The county needs to provide immediate, responsive and effective help to those people who have no protection from extreme weather conditions.

Orange County homeless advocates have developed a petition to call upon the Board of Supervisors to fulfill their promise of providing emergency beds for all people living outdoors during inclement weather—and permanent, affordable housing for all.

Sign the petition.

Eve Garrow is homelessness policy analyst and advocate at the ACLU of Southern California.

By Margaret Dooley-Sammuli

The governor’s proposed state budget released today includes the current Department of Finance estimate of savings resulting from Proposition 47. This first estimate puts FY 2015-16 savings at just $29.3 million, far below all previous estimates and despite a clearly established reduction in state incarceration of people for low-level offenses in 2015 over previous years. The estimate announced today reflects a largely political choice to calculate savings in a way that keeps taxpayer dollars within the prison system – a clear violation of the voter intent behind Prop 47.

It is unreasonable and disingenuous to claim that Prop 47 has not significantly reduced incarceration costs at the state level. The governor’s intention to keep some Prop 47 savings within the prison system rather than reinvesting the full amount into communities disregards the will of California voters. This betrayal of voter intent must be repaired before the state budget is finalized in the summer.

Passed by 60% of voters in November 2014, Prop 47 reduced six low-level drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. A felony offense requires more court and prison time – and therefore more money – than a misdemeanor, which requires fewer hearings and is punishable by up to one year in jail or three years on probation. A felony conviction also costs more than just taxpayer dollars; it undermines public safety by erecting lifelong barriers to the basic necessities that people require to create stability for themselves and their families. Even decades after a person has served their sentence for a felony (regardless of its severity), that felony record makes it difficult to find housing, get decent-paying work, access student loans and closes other opportunities for self-sufficiency. When they approved Prop 47, Californians agreed that a felony is too severe a punishment for certain petty offenses, specifically drug possession for personal use and petty theft of under $950.

Through Prop 47, voters didn’t just demand that punishment better fit the offense. They demanded that California reinvest the savings – not some, but all the savings – from reduced state incarceration into our communities to prevent low-level crime by addressing people’s underlying needs like mental health, substance use disorders, and school truancy, as well as to expand support for survivors of crime.
In Prop 47’s first year, judges approved the resentencing and release of more than 13,000 people from state prison. Now more people convicted of a petty offense remain at the county level to serve their misdemeanor sentence rather than serving a longer felony sentence in state prison. As a result, the governor’s draft budget projects that the average daily population of the state prison system will be reduced by approximately 4,700. Unfortunately, the current estimate subtracts certain court and supervision costs from Prop 47 savings, effectively allocating these savings back into the correctional system.

Despite today’s disappointing estimate, the announcement does underscore that Prop 47 has delivered on its promises to reduce incarceration and to free up tax dollars to go toward more effective investments in our communities. The ACLU’s Changing Gears: California’s Shift to Smart Justice provides an in-depth look at the first year of implementation and provides a lengthy list of funding sources that counties are already tapping to finance smarter approaches to petty crime, mental illness, and substance use disorders.

The California State Legislature will debate the governor’s proposed budget in coming weeks, before the governor issues a revision in May. Supporters of Prop 47 should contact their representatives to let them know that it is not okay for Prop 47 savings to be kept from communities.

At the same time, community members should be working to influence how exactly Prop 47 dollars will be spent. The entities to watch – and to engage – are the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), which will distribute 65% of Prop 47 savings through a competitive grant process; the Department of Education (20%); and the Victims Board (10%). The BSCC will hold four public regional meetings in late January to gather input on Californians’ spending priorities: in Fresno, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Prop 47 gives our state the opportunity to lead the nation in shifting toward smarter approaches to justice. We must not allow that opportunity to be squandered.

Margaret Dooley-Sammuli is director of criminal justice & drug policy for the ACLU of California. The ACLU of California is a collaboration of the ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties.