OPINION: The serious problems with Dorsey’s sober-housing legislation

Sup. Matt Dorsey’s abstinence-only Permanent Supportive Housing Legislation is on the city’s website, and you can see it here.

After reading the legislation, I can only say it’s way worse than anyone could have thought.

I am speaking as someone who has gone through the homeless response system and may live in PSH for the rest of my life, and as someone who grew up with close relatives with substance abuse issues.

First, we must approach this knowing these three things:

1. The support for this type of legislation among PSH tenants has been misrepresented. Based on my conversations, tenants overwhelmingly support having the option to have recovery housing available for those who need it, and that includes myself. I support recovery housing options—but there are plenty of PSH tenants who don’t believe that sobriety should be forced and would not be in support of anything that didn’t give a harm reduction option.

2. The legislation isn’t necessary to enable new drug free/recovery permanent supportive housing. The city could, as of right now, commission new PSH that has restrictions on drug use. There is no need for a ban on new non-sober housing.

3. This legislation is both overly proscriptive and requires community engagement only after the policy is operationalized. This is an ass-backwards way of writing public policy.

4. This legislation comes at a point where there are still concerns about PSH evictions and a lack of policy that balances public safety and health with autonomy and dignity. While the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing has put non-binding guidelines for non-payment evictions, there is nearly no guidance around lease violation evictions. This will exacerbate the eviction crisis and make conditions on the streets worse.

Some of the specifics:

1. Non-sober housing is described as “drug tolerant,” which is a problematic framing.

2. There are two different types of housing that are mandated by this legislation: 

a) Drug Free Supportive Housing, which takes a harsh stance towards use of illicit drugs and on-site use can be grounds for eviction, and isn’t necessarily reserved for those who substance abuse issues, meaning that it could be the norm.

b) Recovery Housing, which is still “sober,” but in a kinder gentler way, it provides supportive services for recovery, does not evict for simple relapse, and allows transition into non-sober housing.

The most problematic part of this legislation:

SEC. 12K.4. USE OF CITY FUNDS FOR DRUG-TOLERANT HOUSING PROHIBITED EXCEPT WHERE RECOVERY HOUSING MODELS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW OR  FUNDING.

(a) Except as stated in subsection (c), the City shall not expend funds for any contract, grant  agreement, or loan agreement to increase the City’s Site-Based Permanent Supportive Housing Portfolio unless the contract, grant agreement, or loan agreement would exclusively fund Supportive-

Recovery Housing or Drug-Free Supportive Housing. 

(b) The prohibition set forth in subsection (a) includes, but is not limited to: (1) entering into a vgrant agreement to fund an organization to provide services or operations for Drug-Tolerant Housing, 

(2) entering into a grant agreement to subsidize operations and/or rents for Drug-Tolerant Housing, and (3) entering into a loan agreement for the development and construction of any new Drug-Tolerant Housing.

(c) The prohibition set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract, grant agreement, vor loan agreement for Site-Based PSH where operation of such Site-Based PSH as Drug-Free Housing  or Supportive-Recovery Housing would be prohibited by law or inconsistent with applicable conditions of funding.

Where do I begin?

1) Unlike other legislation urging the availability of sober options, this is a complete ban on new non-sober PSH without any exemptions or percentage goals for new sober PSH. For example, Dorsey introduced legislation last year that would allow for new non-sober PSH if 25 percent of the portfolio was sober PSH, and the recent vetoed legislation allowed for up to 10 percent of state funded PSH to be sober. However, this is a permanent ban on new non-sober PSH. 

If nothing else, there needs to be a goal for expansion of sober PSH which once it is realized, the halt is ended. This should be based on actual demand, as determined by credible surveys of PSH tenants

2) Because this is a permanent ban on new “drug-tolerant” PSH, this means that if a PSH site is decommissioned, those tenants could be forced into sober living. There needs to be exemptions for replacement units on a one-to-one basis.

3) I live in step-up housing, which is not necessarily recovery housing, but it is recovery-friendly housing in that the disruptive behaviors that cause relapse are nearly non-existent in this type of housing, as opposed to entry level PSH. The procurement of new non-sober step-up housing needs to at least be carved out of this ban, so that units in entry level non-sober housing can turn over and thus more options for harm reduction.

The legislation also provides that HSH must put out a survey of tenants to ostensibly gauge interest in sober options. I personally have no opposition to doing a citywide survey for all PSH tenants, as long as it is framed as a needs assessment gauging demand for sober PSH. With that said, I am concerned that the survey could be rigged and could be used to perpetuate a sober-housing-exclusive agenda. There must be safeguards against the survey being biased.

The provisions banning new non-sober PSH must be jettisoned, or at the very least amended to prevent us from losing non-sober PSH and allowing non-sober PSH when there is adequate sober PSH, and making sure that the needs assessment is not turned into a push poll for recovery grifters.

I don’t know all the answers to everything, but I am hoping this analysis will help in preventing further harm to us.

Jordan Wasilewski is an advocate for the unhoused.