Didn’t 2018’s Prop C create a dedicated funding stream for substance treatment? Is there a plan to build capacity with that, or is it business as usual where political requirements determine what groups are going to be funded and where they’ll operate?

We need to move towards safe supply for opiates/oids because expensive, often non-existent treatment is rarely successful over the long term.

I’d rather pay addicts to use behind closed doors like they did before Reagan and then Clinton I restricted SSI than to have to deal with conservative Puritan scolds clutching their pearls at having public substance use come into their field of vision.

In reply to Dale Milfay.

There is a big difference between sobering center beds and RESIDENTIAL care beds with 24 hour medical care and extensive psychiatric care.

THANK YOU for reporting on this.
Our dumb mayor wants to deny aid to anyone not agreeing to drug treatment, but there is NO PLACE FOR THEM TO GET TREATMENT even if they agree. So what will happen is drug users will simply not apply for aid, and steal more and likely die quicker. Maybe that is the Mayor’s goal?

SF Department of Health counts sobering center beds and navigation center beds, short term voluntary residential treatment programs as mental health treatment beds but there is a difference between “mental health” and psychotic disorders. The latter require stabilization in an acute or sub acute inpatient facility and this is the population that winds up in jail or on the streets.

Campers,

Blame Reagan.

Pardon my language but w/no animous these places were called ‘Insane Asylums’ by the public and every city had them.

Reagan’s reformers went with ‘Community based’ models that had patients living alone or in groups or in groups with resident care and social workers.

Great idea.

Never built enough capacity.

Could be because he also lowered the taxes of the rich from levels of up to 90% down to less than an average worker pays, sometimes to nothing.