Homelessness has always been a serious issue in the United States, but at times the issue tends to get swept away. In 2004, Californians voted for prop 63. This allowed millionaires to get taxed, in order to help the homeless who are mentally ill to cover services like medical care, counseling and job training. Due to complaints on how the money was being spent, proposition 63 was put on hold. According to the National Healthcare for the homelessness, a homeless person is defined as a person without housing, who may stay in a shelter, abandoned buildings, single room facilities, or any other housing that is not permanent (Veteran Homelessness,2018). The World Health Organization (WHO) defines mental health as a state of well-being, in which every individual notices their own potential, and knowing they can cope with the stress, but yet still work productively (WHO,2014).
According to Proposition 2, it will authorize bonds to fund an existing program that was created for the homeless living with serious mental health issues, which was previously known as proposition 63. As of now, counties in California are responsible for providing mental health treatment for individuals that do not have access to private healthcare insurance. Proposition 63, which is also known as the Mental Health Services Act will increase the tax for those that have an income of one million dollars or more. There was a lawsuit that opposed the idea of using money to provide housing to the homeless, because not all funds were going towards mental health, but building funds as well.
I am in support of proposition 2 because the state will be able to use the previous counties mental health funds they had before to pay for the housing. I would prefer that our tax dollars will be spent on changing a life, rather than going towards the unknown. In 2016, the legislature created the program No Place Like Home; which was to provide housing for the homeless struggling with mental health. In order to operate this program, the state needs two billion dollars, which would essentially take some of the funding away for providing mental health services to California counties. For the program to take place it must receive approval from the courts to retrieve the money from the Mental Health Services Act funding to pay for the No Place Like Home bonds.
127 our experts are availableright now
According to the state auditor, Elaine Howel, the counties in California have failed to utilize all the funds totaling in 2.5 billion dollars of taxpayers’ money that should be used for mental health services(Renner,2018). From a policy perspective, there needs to be a policy in place that if counties aren’t utilizing all the funds for the mental health services, after two years they need to return the money back to the state. The money that was not used for mental health services in the counties can then go back into the fund for the No Place Like Home Program. Also, implementing a policy that forces the counties to utilize a portion of their funds towards homeless with mental health issues.
There should be a time frame that each county has in order to utilize these funds. If the counties have these funds that can better one’s life, why are we allowing them to not allocate the funds for helping those struggling with mental health. There is a stigma behind the word “homeless” and “mental health”. In order to get the homeless living with mental health conditions off the street, we have to start with ending the stigma and understand who makes up the homeless population. According to the National Alliance to end homelessness, fifty-six percent of the homeless population are veterans, that is more than half of our homeless population (Institute of Medicine,1998). Many of the homeless veterans are living with serious mental health issues, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
In a recent study, 5,694 veterans were screened for housing instability, eighty-five percent were experiencing brief housing instability, meanwhile, the fifteen percent were experience an ongoing housing instability (Mental Health, 2018). Researchers indicate that a high proportion of homeless women suffer from serious problems including chronic mental illness and pregnancy-related problems ( Byrne et al,2017). Many homeless individuals that are dealing with mental health illnesses may also suffer from substance abuse(Chrystal,2015). Which may become more complex in getting them help with the No Place Like Home Program.
There are many positive outcomes that can come from proposition 2. It would allow the no place like home to move forward with or without the voters’ approval. Although, if the court was not going to pass the program, then proposition 2 will be beneficial to the low income. It can teach the homeless to develop people skills. Some homeless are fending for their lives on the streets just to find food and a place to stay for the night. They may become unapproachable, and not sure how to communicate with the public. From experience, when approaching a homeless person, some are not very sociable. Many will except help, but will have a problem communicating.
From experience, I have a family member who is homeless struggling with mental health. There have been times where our family has tried to help and support them. It is solely up to the individual whether if they want to seek help or receive the help. Yet there is many homeless struggling with mental health, who would like to receive help, but are unaware that help is out there. I would suggest that if No Place Like Home had an outreach group that can go out into different counties, homeless shelters, and speak to those that are struggling with mental health. Tell the population about the program and what services they offer, and how No Place Like Home can help them with their future.
If the program is located in more secluded area of California, the program can have “pick up days” that can transfer the individual out the city to where the program is located and check them in. If proposition 2 passed, it would affect the low income that are on the verge of becoming homeless, and those that are currently homeless struggling with mental health. This proposition can possibly affect the counties funding for mental health services. Although, the counties will still receive funding, it won’t be the same amount. The proposition can also affect the county or city where the no place like home program will take place. Which will question whether having this program near housing or in a certain city will lower the value of the area.
Although, there will be those that are against this proposition, we still have to keep in mind that we don’t know what kind of mental illnesses each individual is experiencing. I would suggest that the location should be in a rural part of California. This would allow one to get the away from the city, away from drug access. It will give them a chance to experience a new environment. Transportation should not be an issue, due to medical services that are being provided in the house developments. Proposition 2 will also help the public health community and professionals come together, and to dedicate their time to help those suffering with mental illness.
This proposition is not only providing housing, but they are providing medical treatment and services to promote healthy living. One of the social determinants’ that play a role in this proposition is having the access to care. The housing would provide stability, and access to medical services nearby. Whereas, they may miss appointments due to having no source of transportation. A positive outcome is that prop 2 will not add any additional cost to tax payers, only the money used in state funding. If prop 2 was passed, the worse that can happen is that the program will fail. It doesn’t hurt to take a chance and to see if something good can come out of No Place Like Home.
In summary, the best way to help someone’s mental health is by providing stability. Knowing that they can potentially have a place to call home until they can get their illness treated is one less thing they would have to worry about. Prop 2 gives a possible solution on how we could potentially help the low-income/homeless population. Overall, it focuses on helping those dealing with homelessness and mental health illnesses within our communities.
